[ back ]
Presumption of innocence foiled
(by Dave Lange - June 16, 2010)
COUNTY LINE, BY DAVE LANGE
Presumption of innocence foiled
In speaking with the mother of young man whose name had been included in one of our recent police reports, we had a conversation that I've had dozens of times over the years. She said the report that her son had been charged with an offense made him look guilty to readers. I reiterated my belief that, in America, citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and that intelligent readers understand that.
Well, the Ohio Supreme Court says I'm wrong. The high court ruled a couple weeks ago in a Summit County case that police don't need any proof whatsoever, that their word and their presumed expertise are sufficient to convict drivers of speeding violations.
By that line or reasoning, if an officer declares that a teenager has been consuming alcohol illegally, even though there is no physical evidence and no objective blood-alcohol-content testing to support that subjective observation, the young person is guilty. By that reasoning, a citizen would be guilty of theft, based on the accusation of a police officer, even though no items were missing or have been recovered.
In the Summit County case, an officer estimated that a driver was traveling at 73 mph in a 60 mph zone on Route 21, while his radar clocked the motorist at 82 mph or 83 mph. So the officer's estimate was 10 mph different from the radar. Nevertheless, a 5-1 Supreme Court majority determined that the officer's supposed expertise not only is sufficient proof for the justice system, but it is superior to the actual evidence. The actual evidence produced by the radar detector had been disqualified by the lower courts, because this particular officer was not sufficiently trained to use the device. Despite this clear and evident lack of law-enforcement expertise, the Ohio Supreme found that evidence is irrelevant, and observation is infallible.
Fortunately, most area police departments are not anxious to jump on this new license to deny citizens their right to due process, as they told our reporter Joan Demirjian a week ago.
"It doesn't seem right to use that method," Solon Police Chief Wayne Godzich said. "It doesn't wash with me as a general practice to estimate speed." He added that "it's not fair to the public to have people of various skill levels determining the speed of a car as it goes by."
"This court ruling isn't going to change our operations," Geauga County Sheriff Dan McClelland said. "When you are looking at fining someone and points are assessed to the driver's license, you need to be right."
"I don't see us changing anything because of the court ruling," Russell Police Chief Timothy Carroll said. "We wouldn't want an officer writing a ticket on an estimate."
"Even though the court ruled as it did, we want something documented or measurable," South Russell police Lt. Dave Ferrell said.
It is true that most experienced police officers are pretty good at estimating vehicle speeds. Even inexperienced observers can tell a difference between 35 mph and 70 mph. But police who are properly trained use properly calibrated radar and other devices to back up their observations for very good reasons. They are supposed to serve the public and uphold the people's rights -- including proof beyond a shadow of doubt.
State Sen. Timothy J. Grendell, R-Chester, and state Rep. Robert Hagan, D-Youngstown, are introducing bills to correct the court's assault on those rights. Meanwhile, I may need to adjust my assumption about the presumption of innocence.
[ back ]
