From the case cited the court noted:
From his official CHP plane, Officer Hines saw appellant moving at a speed he visually estimated to be 105 miles per hour.
I doubt that officers' training at the academy (and I think that this is the only formal training they have) would have included visual estimates from a plane.
Well, the validity of an officer's visual estimate is not dependent on his location (or elevation for that matter) nor is it dependent on his/her speed relative to the vehicle which he/she is estimating. In some cases, the officer may be stopped at the side of the road, on an elevated bridge/overpass...etc, while in others, he/she may be moving along with traffic. Incidentally, we've had a similar discussion on another forum regarding a citation which was issued at 10pm that involved a visual estimate/RADAR reading... Someone brought up the point that he doubts that the officer was trained in visual estimates during darkness. Hardly a relevant point in that it would be safe to assume that said vehicle had its headlights on and it would be just as easily to track it regardless of whether the sun is out or not!
Typically, an officer will testify that he/she made a visual estimate of the suspect vehicle, followed by either a RADAR/LIDAR/Pace to confirm (narrow down) such estimate... In some cases, and subsequent to a challenge of the validity of the RADAR/LIDAR/Pace estimate by the defendant, the court may decide to sustain the defendant's objection which will ultimately result is the RADAR/LIDAR/Pace reading being thrown out. That leaves the visual estimate which, in theory, can not be challenged in an appeal especially considering the fact that an appeals court will not entertain a challenge that is based on second guessing a decision by the trier of fact as to whether he/she decided whether the officer's testimony (the evidence) was credible enough to sustain a conviction.
From
"People v. Zunis":
The appellant was free to attack the accuracy of the watch "through cross-examination and otherwise" but the ultimate decision on how much weight to give the evidence rested with the trial judge, whose factual determinations cannot be revisited on appeal. We may not reweigh evidence. (People v. Ochoa, (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, 864 P.2d 103; People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303-304, 228 Cal.Rptr. 228, 721 P.2d 110.) "It is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the . . . truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends." (People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 754, 114 Cal.Rptr. 467, 523 P.2d 267.)
And, more to the point we are discussing here (again, from
"People v. Zunis":
Appellant further contends that the officer's visual estimate was not substantial evidence of speed because he had not been trained to perform visual estimates from the air and because he "admitted to a 5 mph error factor." Again, these facts affect the weight to be placed on the officer's visual estimate. However, we must presume the court afforded them the appropriate weight in reaching its conclusion that appellant exceeded 100 miles per hour.
This case opinion does not indicate that any attempt was made investigating the training methods & their effectiveness.
I didn't cite that case in an attempt to imply that the effectiveness of the P.O.S.T. training methods are
"scientifically" accurate/reliable (if that is what you mean). Initially, I cited it only as a reference that during such training, an officer has to successfully make 100 estimates before he is considered "P.O.S.T./ certified". Although a more careful reading of the case would suggest that a visual estimates are indeed, "legally acceptable" (and frankly, I highly doubt that you can find a case wherein the POST training methods were put to the legal test).
