Passing sheriff at +140.

smllc

Keep Moving Forward
Beginner User
Joined
Feb 2, 2018
Messages
50
Reaction score
65
Location
Ohio
I've been busy with life, so I haven't been too involved with the community. However,
every once and awhile something comes up and brings me back.

Today, a few minutes ago, I had the S5 out of the garage with the R3. I had hit an open stretch, and quickly was cruising at +150. Nothing new to me.
Unfortunately, I missed the sheriff "cargo" van that I came up on.

While I'm not sure what I was thinking, the sheriff van was for sure behind me long enough to grab my plate. I slowed down, but quickly gave up that game and gunned it away from the threat.
The van disappeared after 10 seconds. The fact that it was a transportation van was the driving factor, and he had not turned on his lights, even when equipped and behind me for a significant length of time.

I'm sure the van did not clock me, as my R3 would have notified. So now I wonder, they have my plate, and possibly a video, is that enough to be a problem?

122069
 

smllc

Keep Moving Forward
Beginner User
Joined
Feb 2, 2018
Messages
50
Reaction score
65
Location
Ohio
Considering it wasn't you driving it on video but rather someone that you loaned your car to, you're fine.
Thanks for your response Jon.
Your stating that as long as the video cannot prove I was driving, it's "A OK?"
-- Double Post Merged: --
To add to discussion, the vehicle is registered to a family member, not myself.
 

Super Dave

I'm invisible
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
601
Reaction score
786
Location
Kentucky
I don’t think those guys care about speeders. Just actually real criminals to transport.
 

Kennyc56

Ford Lover-I/O hater!
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
2,612
Reaction score
6,313
Location
I/O Hell, Aka Eastern N.C.
They still worry the hell out of me because they still have a radio! You would be surprised to see how fast a State Trooper will pop up out of nowhere when they get a call, especially from another state vehicle! I would have got the hell away from him too as fast as I could!
 

smllc

Keep Moving Forward
Beginner User
Joined
Feb 2, 2018
Messages
50
Reaction score
65
Location
Ohio
They still worry the hell out of me because they still have a radio! You would be surprised to see how fast a State Trooper will pop up out of nowhere when they get a call, especially from another state vehicle! I would have got the hell away from him too as fast as I could!
Glad I'm not alone, was for sure aware that might happen! Scary stuff.
 

Phantom Z3

The new kid on the block...
Intermediate User
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
682
Reaction score
627
Location
Atlanta, GA
Hell, you have street racers running from the police with their lights on. Usually, they only lock up one out of 500 just to set an example and that's if they can catch them out of their car or if they corner someone.
 

smllc

Keep Moving Forward
Beginner User
Joined
Feb 2, 2018
Messages
50
Reaction score
65
Location
Ohio
I've read a few places that after experiencing a "runner," LEO's will look up the owner details of a vehicle based on the plate, and just show up at the front door with a warrant for the car, etc.
This was my biggest worry.
 
Last edited:

Jennifer

Lifetime RDF Contributor
Beginner User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Messages
333
Reaction score
758
I'm sure the van did not clock me, as my R3 would have notified.
Oh Glasshoppa, how beautiful to be so young and naive.....

If he was behind you, kept up to you for more than a couple seconds, and could see his speedometer, he was able to clock you.... if he did or not is what the concern is. For all we know it could have been a non sworn employee which makes the following irreverent but in most jurisdictions Ohio (which includes Summit County, where that van is from) included, a sworn officer has the authority to determine speed based on his witnessing the event and/or pacing you. In Ohio they changed it to remove the simple observation, but with the aid of a speedo, you're done!!!!

In Barberton v. Jenney, 2010-Ohio-2420, the Ohio Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether a person can be convicted for a speed violation based solely on a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a motor vehicle’s speed. To summarize the facts very briefly, Mr. Jenney was traveling down State Route 21 when Officer Santimarino observed Mr. Jenney traveling in excess of the posted speed limit of 60 mph. Mr. Jenney’s speed was based on Officer Santimarino’s visual estimation of Mr. Jenney’s vehicle and based on a radar reading of 82 mph. At the time, Officer Santimarino was observing vehicles for potential speed violations in a stationary position. Mr. Jenney argued at trial that the radar results should not be admissible because the city failed to establish a proper foundation for admission. Based on this logic, Mr. Jenney maintained that without the radar results, the city failed to present sufficient evidence of his speed and his conviction could not stand.

The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Jenney that since the city could not produce Officer Santimarino’s radar operator’s certificate at trial, the trial court erred in permitting Officer Santimarino to testify about his radar results. However, the Ninth District found the admission of Officer Santimarino’s testimony regarding the radar results was harmless error because Officer Santimarino’s visual estimation of the vehicle’s speed was sufficient to support Mr. Jenney’s conviction.

Not wanting to give up his fight, Mr. Jenney took his issue to the Ohio Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Ohio Supreme Court was not in Mr. Jenney’s corner for this fight. The Court held that “a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction of speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.20(D) without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Training Academy or a similar organization that develops and implements training programs to meet the needs of law-enforcement professions and the communities they serve, and is experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed.”

As you can imagine, not too many people were happy about the Court’s decision regarding unaided visual estimation. In short, what is the point of having radar or laser anymore if a police officer can just use a visual estimation? Assuming that the police officer meets the training requirements set forth in the Court’s decision, all a police officer would need to do in order to obtain a speed conviction is state, “yeah the vehicle in question was going about 41 mph to 46 mph in a 35 mph zone based upon my visual estimation.” Well this did not sit well with the Ohio Legislature. In House Bill 86, the Ohio Legislature amended R.C. 4511.091 to do away with unaided visual estimations of a vehicle’s speed.

R.C. 4511.091(C) states:

(1) No person shall be arrested, charged or convicted of a violation of any provision of divisions (B) to (O) of section 4511.21 or section 4511.211 of the Revised Code or substantially similar municipal ordinance based on a peace officer’s unaided visual estimation of the speed of a motor vehicle. This division does not do any of the following:

(a)Preclude the use by a peace officer of a stopwatch, radar, laser, or other electrical, mechanical, or digital device to determine the speed of a motor vehicle.

Although the amendment to R.C. 4511.091 was a little too late for Mr. Jenney, overall it did away with allowing a police officer to utilize unaided visual estimations of a vehicle’s speed to obtain a speed conviction. However, if you look at R.C. 4511.091 (C)(1)(a), police officers are not precluded from speed arrests if the officer used a stopwatch, radar, laser, or other electrical, mechanical, or digital device. Radar is generally attached, in some form or another, to the patrol car. Laser is typically a laser gun that the police officer uses from a stationary position on the side of the road. Lastly, speed enforcement airplanes use stopwatches to calculate a person’s speed on the roadway. So that leaves us with other electrical, mechanical, or digital devices. Well, what falls into the category of other electrical, mechanical, or digital devices?

The Second District Court of Appeals addressed the issue of what falls into the category of other electrical, mechanical, or digital devices under R.C. 4511.091 in State v. West, 2015-Ohio-442. In West, Trooper Pohlable visually estimated Ms. West’s vehicle to be travelling at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone on McCall Avenue. Trooper Pohlable then set his cruiser speedometer at 40 mph and followed Ms. West for a quarter a of mile, while watching to determine whether Ms. West maintained her speed. Trooper Pohlable found Ms. West to be traveling between 40 mph to 41 mph. Based on this, Trooper Pohlable stopped Ms. West for speeding and subsequently arrested her for illegal drug possession. Ms. West moved to suppress the evidence of illegal drugs, arguing that because Trooper Pohlable’s traffic stop for speeding was based on unaided visual estimation of speed, he therefore had no reasonable suspicion to stop Ms. West.

The trial court sustained Ms. West’s motion to suppress, finding that Trooper Pohlable used an unaided visual estimation of speed in deciding to initiate the traffic stop. The trial court went on to state that there was insufficient evidence and authority to support the reliability of pacing. The Second District Court of Appeals, however, saw things differently.

Looking to R.C. 4511.091 (C)(1)(a), the Court stated, “we conclude that a cruiser speedometer qualifies as an electric, mechanical, or digital device to determine the speed of a motor vehicle.” The Court further held that “while Trooper Pohlable did make an initial unaided visual estimate that the car was speeding, he then used his speedometer to pace the vehicle in order to determine its speed.”
 

DrHow

Lifetime RDF Contributor
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,241
Reaction score
3,462
I've been busy with life, so I haven't been too involved with the community. However,
every once and awhile something comes up and brings me back.

Today, a few minutes ago, I had the S5 out of the garage with the R3. I had hit an open stretch, and quickly was cruising at +150. Nothing new to me.
Unfortunately, I missed the sheriff "cargo" van that I came up on.

While I'm not sure what I was thinking, the sheriff van was for sure behind me long enough to grab my plate. I slowed down, but quickly gave up that game and gunned it away from the threat.
The van disappeared after 10 seconds. The fact that it was a transportation van was the driving factor, and he had not turned on his lights, even when equipped and behind me for a significant length of time.

I'm sure the van did not clock me, as my R3 would have notified. So now I wonder, they have my plate, and possibly a video, is that enough to be a problem?

View attachment 122069
Here in Indiana, these prison transports are driven by $1yr paid deputies. Volunteer deputies, who get deputy sheriff training, carry weapons and the like. They can be retired folks, or young ones trying to work their way up. They would not likely be interested in phoning you in, or trying to play pew pew fast car chaser. Especially if they have a load of transferees, or load of work prisoner workers on the way to trim the highway guardrail grass and pick up the trash.
-- Double Post Merged: --
Oh Glasshoppa, how beautiful to be so young and naive.....

If he was behind you, kept up to you for more than a couple seconds, and could see his speedometer, he was able to clock you.... if he did or not is what the concern is. For all we know it could have been a non sworn employee which makes the following irreverent but in most jurisdictions Ohio (which includes Summit County, where that van is from) included, a sworn officer has the authority to determine speed based on his witnessing the event and/or pacing you. In Ohio they changed it to remove the simple observation, but with the aid of a speedo, you're done!!!!

In Barberton v. Jenney, 2010-Ohio-2420, the Ohio Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether a person can be convicted for a speed violation based solely on a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a motor vehicle’s speed. To summarize the facts very briefly, Mr. Jenney was traveling down State Route 21 when Officer Santimarino observed Mr. Jenney traveling in excess of the posted speed limit of 60 mph. Mr. Jenney’s speed was based on Officer Santimarino’s visual estimation of Mr. Jenney’s vehicle and based on a radar reading of 82 mph. At the time, Officer Santimarino was observing vehicles for potential speed violations in a stationary position. Mr. Jenney argued at trial that the radar results should not be admissible because the city failed to establish a proper foundation for admission. Based on this logic, Mr. Jenney maintained that without the radar results, the city failed to present sufficient evidence of his speed and his conviction could not stand.

The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Jenney that since the city could not produce Officer Santimarino’s radar operator’s certificate at trial, the trial court erred in permitting Officer Santimarino to testify about his radar results. However, the Ninth District found the admission of Officer Santimarino’s testimony regarding the radar results was harmless error because Officer Santimarino’s visual estimation of the vehicle’s speed was sufficient to support Mr. Jenney’s conviction.

Not wanting to give up his fight, Mr. Jenney took his issue to the Ohio Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Ohio Supreme Court was not in Mr. Jenney’s corner for this fight. The Court held that “a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction of speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.20(D) without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Training Academy or a similar organization that develops and implements training programs to meet the needs of law-enforcement professions and the communities they serve, and is experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed.”

As you can imagine, not too many people were happy about the Court’s decision regarding unaided visual estimation. In short, what is the point of having radar or laser anymore if a police officer can just use a visual estimation? Assuming that the police officer meets the training requirements set forth in the Court’s decision, all a police officer would need to do in order to obtain a speed conviction is state, “yeah the vehicle in question was going about 41 mph to 46 mph in a 35 mph zone based upon my visual estimation.” Well this did not sit well with the Ohio Legislature. In House Bill 86, the Ohio Legislature amended R.C. 4511.091 to do away with unaided visual estimations of a vehicle’s speed.

R.C. 4511.091(C) states:

(1) No person shall be arrested, charged or convicted of a violation of any provision of divisions (B) to (O) of section 4511.21 or section 4511.211 of the Revised Code or substantially similar municipal ordinance based on a peace officer’s unaided visual estimation of the speed of a motor vehicle. This division does not do any of the following:

(a)Preclude the use by a peace officer of a stopwatch, radar, laser, or other electrical, mechanical, or digital device to determine the speed of a motor vehicle.

Although the amendment to R.C. 4511.091 was a little too late for Mr. Jenney, overall it did away with allowing a police officer to utilize unaided visual estimations of a vehicle’s speed to obtain a speed conviction. However, if you look at R.C. 4511.091 (C)(1)(a), police officers are not precluded from speed arrests if the officer used a stopwatch, radar, laser, or other electrical, mechanical, or digital device. Radar is generally attached, in some form or another, to the patrol car. Laser is typically a laser gun that the police officer uses from a stationary position on the side of the road. Lastly, speed enforcement airplanes use stopwatches to calculate a person’s speed on the roadway. So that leaves us with other electrical, mechanical, or digital devices. Well, what falls into the category of other electrical, mechanical, or digital devices?

The Second District Court of Appeals addressed the issue of what falls into the category of other electrical, mechanical, or digital devices under R.C. 4511.091 in State v. West, 2015-Ohio-442. In West, Trooper Pohlable visually estimated Ms. West’s vehicle to be travelling at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone on McCall Avenue. Trooper Pohlable then set his cruiser speedometer at 40 mph and followed Ms. West for a quarter a of mile, while watching to determine whether Ms. West maintained her speed. Trooper Pohlable found Ms. West to be traveling between 40 mph to 41 mph. Based on this, Trooper Pohlable stopped Ms. West for speeding and subsequently arrested her for illegal drug possession. Ms. West moved to suppress the evidence of illegal drugs, arguing that because Trooper Pohlable’s traffic stop for speeding was based on unaided visual estimation of speed, he therefore had no reasonable suspicion to stop Ms. West.

The trial court sustained Ms. West’s motion to suppress, finding that Trooper Pohlable used an unaided visual estimation of speed in deciding to initiate the traffic stop. The trial court went on to state that there was insufficient evidence and authority to support the reliability of pacing. The Second District Court of Appeals, however, saw things differently.

Looking to R.C. 4511.091 (C)(1)(a), the Court stated, “we conclude that a cruiser speedometer qualifies as an electric, mechanical, or digital device to determine the speed of a motor vehicle.” The Court further held that “while Trooper Pohlable did make an initial unaided visual estimate that the car was speeding, he then used his speedometer to pace the vehicle in order to determine its speed.”
Great detail. In this case, looks like he/she was not in mood to play jack boot with the wicked administrative law.
 
Last edited:

Phantom Z3

The new kid on the block...
Intermediate User
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
682
Reaction score
627
Location
Atlanta, GA
Oh Glasshoppa, how beautiful to be so young and naive.....

If he was behind you, kept up to you for more than a couple seconds, and could see his speedometer, he was able to clock you.... if he did or not is what the concern is. For all we know it could have been a non sworn employee which makes the following irreverent but in most jurisdictions Ohio (which includes Summit County, where that van is from) included, a sworn officer has the authority to determine speed based on his witnessing the event and/or pacing you. In Ohio they changed it to remove the simple observation, but with the aid of a speedo, you're done!!!!

In Barberton v. Jenney, 2010-Ohio-2420, the Ohio Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether a person can be convicted for a speed violation based solely on a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a motor vehicle’s speed. To summarize the facts very briefly, Mr. Jenney was traveling down State Route 21 when Officer Santimarino observed Mr. Jenney traveling in excess of the posted speed limit of 60 mph. Mr. Jenney’s speed was based on Officer Santimarino’s visual estimation of Mr. Jenney’s vehicle and based on a radar reading of 82 mph. At the time, Officer Santimarino was observing vehicles for potential speed violations in a stationary position. Mr. Jenney argued at trial that the radar results should not be admissible because the city failed to establish a proper foundation for admission. Based on this logic, Mr. Jenney maintained that without the radar results, the city failed to present sufficient evidence of his speed and his conviction could not stand.

The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Jenney that since the city could not produce Officer Santimarino’s radar operator’s certificate at trial, the trial court erred in permitting Officer Santimarino to testify about his radar results. However, the Ninth District found the admission of Officer Santimarino’s testimony regarding the radar results was harmless error because Officer Santimarino’s visual estimation of the vehicle’s speed was sufficient to support Mr. Jenney’s conviction.

Not wanting to give up his fight, Mr. Jenney took his issue to the Ohio Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Ohio Supreme Court was not in Mr. Jenney’s corner for this fight. The Court held that “a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction of speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.20(D) without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Training Academy or a similar organization that develops and implements training programs to meet the needs of law-enforcement professions and the communities they serve, and is experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed.”

As you can imagine, not too many people were happy about the Court’s decision regarding unaided visual estimation. In short, what is the point of having radar or laser anymore if a police officer can just use a visual estimation? Assuming that the police officer meets the training requirements set forth in the Court’s decision, all a police officer would need to do in order to obtain a speed conviction is state, “yeah the vehicle in question was going about 41 mph to 46 mph in a 35 mph zone based upon my visual estimation.” Well this did not sit well with the Ohio Legislature. In House Bill 86, the Ohio Legislature amended R.C. 4511.091 to do away with unaided visual estimations of a vehicle’s speed.

R.C. 4511.091(C) states:

(1) No person shall be arrested, charged or convicted of a violation of any provision of divisions (B) to (O) of section 4511.21 or section 4511.211 of the Revised Code or substantially similar municipal ordinance based on a peace officer’s unaided visual estimation of the speed of a motor vehicle. This division does not do any of the following:

(a)Preclude the use by a peace officer of a stopwatch, radar, laser, or other electrical, mechanical, or digital device to determine the speed of a motor vehicle.

Although the amendment to R.C. 4511.091 was a little too late for Mr. Jenney, overall it did away with allowing a police officer to utilize unaided visual estimations of a vehicle’s speed to obtain a speed conviction. However, if you look at R.C. 4511.091 (C)(1)(a), police officers are not precluded from speed arrests if the officer used a stopwatch, radar, laser, or other electrical, mechanical, or digital device. Radar is generally attached, in some form or another, to the patrol car. Laser is typically a laser gun that the police officer uses from a stationary position on the side of the road. Lastly, speed enforcement airplanes use stopwatches to calculate a person’s speed on the roadway. So that leaves us with other electrical, mechanical, or digital devices. Well, what falls into the category of other electrical, mechanical, or digital devices?

The Second District Court of Appeals addressed the issue of what falls into the category of other electrical, mechanical, or digital devices under R.C. 4511.091 in State v. West, 2015-Ohio-442. In West, Trooper Pohlable visually estimated Ms. West’s vehicle to be travelling at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone on McCall Avenue. Trooper Pohlable then set his cruiser speedometer at 40 mph and followed Ms. West for a quarter a of mile, while watching to determine whether Ms. West maintained her speed. Trooper Pohlable found Ms. West to be traveling between 40 mph to 41 mph. Based on this, Trooper Pohlable stopped Ms. West for speeding and subsequently arrested her for illegal drug possession. Ms. West moved to suppress the evidence of illegal drugs, arguing that because Trooper Pohlable’s traffic stop for speeding was based on unaided visual estimation of speed, he therefore had no reasonable suspicion to stop Ms. West.

The trial court sustained Ms. West’s motion to suppress, finding that Trooper Pohlable used an unaided visual estimation of speed in deciding to initiate the traffic stop. The trial court went on to state that there was insufficient evidence and authority to support the reliability of pacing. The Second District Court of Appeals, however, saw things differently.

Looking to R.C. 4511.091 (C)(1)(a), the Court stated, “we conclude that a cruiser speedometer qualifies as an electric, mechanical, or digital device to determine the speed of a motor vehicle.” The Court further held that “while Trooper Pohlable did make an initial unaided visual estimate that the car was speeding, he then used his speedometer to pace the vehicle in order to determine its speed.”
Yep, I was pulled over with pacing even with my R3 and TMGs. I was trying my hardest to stay awake and get home before I fell asleep at the wheel (I had just chugged a full XL QuikTrip cup of Pepsi with no effect so I knew I was in trouble) and my convertible top window is too hazy to see through properly so I didn't see him following me for the 1/2 mile he did.
 

DrHow

Lifetime RDF Contributor
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,241
Reaction score
3,462
Yep, I was pulled over with pacing even with my R3 and TMGs. I was trying my hardest to stay awake and get home before I fell asleep at the wheel (I had just chugged a full XL QuikTrip cup of Pepsi with no effect so I knew I was in trouble) and my convertible top window is too hazy to see through properly so I didn't see him following me for the 1/2 mile he did.
But.... he was pacing you. In this case, the van could not be capable of pacing, and it would have to be eyeball only estimate. Which is technically available according to Jennifer post. But, prison transporter would really have to be that pew pew pew Jack boot to try that.
 

rbraughn

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
46
Reaction score
66
Location
Texas Gulf Coast
Several factors to consider that may be in your favor. That is not a “police car” so he probably does not have a certified speedometer in order to pace you.

Also that looks like a prisoner transport van. In the county I live in those people driving are “ jailers” and not sworn police officers, they have no authority to do traffic enforcement or training to estimate speed.

At best where I am, they would only be able to radio another sworn officer to intervene.
 

Gunney57

Premium RDF Member
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
293
Reaction score
250
Location
Wisconsin
Worked a while for a handicap transport company that did some work for the local sheriff's dept. My experience is if it didn't involve violence, firearms or serious injury they were not going to care much about it. Not the responsibility of those officers.
 

CPB

Left Lane for Passing Only
Intermediate User
Joined
May 26, 2017
Messages
729
Reaction score
944
Location
Louisiana
I always pass the transport vans here, since they aren't out to do traffic enforcement.
 

Gunney57

Premium RDF Member
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
293
Reaction score
250
Location
Wisconsin
Oh, and those officers involved where full sheriffs deputies, at least in the county we operated in.
 

CPB

Left Lane for Passing Only
Intermediate User
Joined
May 26, 2017
Messages
729
Reaction score
944
Location
Louisiana

MotorCityMike

Lifetime RDF Contributor
General User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
35
Reaction score
74
Not every cop is Barney Fife. Some just don't care and I suspect that's the case here.

Probably had 2 cops in it and I'll bet they had a "holy s**t look at this guy" moment. Shook their heads and had a laugh.

Figured it's not their job and someone else will catch you sooner or later.
 

Discord Server

Latest threads

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
77,403
Messages
1,179,743
Members
19,819
Latest member
Chazark
Top