Attacking the evidence.

[Taximule]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio
I received a ticket a few days ago and some of my friends told me to attack the evidence and the ticket will be dismissed. Everyone offered different opinions. Since some of the information was conflicting it made me curious as to who was right.

ORC 4511.21C
A friend said that local authorities have to establish the speed limit, not the state in order to be charged with this violation. If the area I was speeding in was outside city limits, then local authorities can't establish speed limits outside city limits so this violation wouldn't apply. Is he right?
On the report it says tracking history with 2 different speeds. After that is a "speed locked at" and then has a mph speed and a distance in feet. I'm assuming the distance is how far I was from the officer when he locked my speed. I was told that the locked speed has to be the speed listed on the ticket, not the highest listed under tracking history. True?
Of course there was conflicting information on the machine. Arguing the calibration or proof of machine working is worthless and won't matter. Others said to see if it was calibrated daily, otherwise speed could be wrong and ticket dropped. Who's right?
Then there was the trooper. Find out if he is certified to use the machine. How many years has he been a trooper. How many tickets does he usually issue per day. Etc. Does any of this really matter?
Laser has to be stationary. If offer is holding it up instead of having it rested on the door or mounted, the reading is wrong. True?
I did research some court cases online since I was curious. The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled on a few cases that there is no prima-facie unlawful speed. If I present the cases to the judge, will my case be dismissed?
Something was mentioned about lasers usually don't have judicial notice. What is this?
If officer doesn't show up, case dismissed. True?
The prosecutor will probably offer me a lesser charge. True?
Since at/near isn't listed in that spot on ticket, ticket will be dismissed. True?
If ANYTHING on the ticket is blank or wrong relating to this violation, it is invalid. True?
I did plead not guilty (I don't believe I was going that fast). I also waived my right to a speedy trial. I was told I was wrong to waive. Another said I can change that back to a right to a speedy trial. Who is right?
I couldn't believe all of the different "information" I was told. I would like to know what is right and wrong so I can tell those who are incorrect.

 

[HighwayMan]

Does any of this really matter?

Not in the least.

You have a lot of incorrect information. If you are looking to have a reasonable chance of winning you should stop playing Perry Mason and consult with a real attorney experienced handling traffic cases in the court of record.

 

[Just Blue]

Not in the least.

You have a lot of incorrect information. If you are looking to have a reasonable chance of winning you should stop playing Perry Mason and consult with a real attorney experienced handling traffic cases in the court of record.

Highwayman...How does one "attack" evidence? Do you just walk up to said evidence and punch it?

 

[Taxing Matters]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

ORC 4511.21C
A friend said that local authorities have to establish the speed limit, not the state in order to be charged with this violation. If the area I was speeding in was outside city limits, then local authorities can't establish speed limits outside city limits so this violation wouldn't apply. Is he right?

No. ORC § 4511.21(C) states:

It is prima-facie unlawful for any person to exceed any of the speed limitations in divisions (B)(1)(a), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of this section, or any declared or established pursuant to this section by the director or local authorities and it is unlawful for any person to exceed any of the speed limitations in division (D) of this section. No person shall be convicted of more than one violation of this section for the same conduct, although violations of more than one provision of this section may be charged in the alternative in a single affidavit.​

Bolding added. The reference to “director” in the part I bolded is to the director of the Department of Transportation. Thus, it is a prima facie violation of that section to exceed the speed limit set by the state or by the local government. So arguing that the ticket is invalid because you were outside of town and the speed limit was set by the state is a loser.

On the report it says tracking history with 2 different speeds. After that is a "speed locked at" and then has a mph speed and a distance in feet. I'm assuming the distance is how far I was from the officer when he locked my speed. I was told that the locked speed has to be the speed listed on the ticket, not the highest listed under tracking history. True?

Nothing in the statute says that. Nor can I find any cases that say that either. You will need to find such a case to make this argument. I suggest you consult a traffic attorney about that.

Of course there was conflicting information on the machine. Arguing the calibration or proof of machine working is worthless and won't matter. Others said to see if it was calibrated daily, otherwise speed could be wrong and ticket dropped. Who's right?
Then there was the trooper. Find out if he is certified to use the machine. How many years has he been a trooper. How many tickets does he usually issue per day. Etc. Does any of this really matter?

You can try getting discovery on the machines calibration and question the officer on his knowledge and experience in using the speed measuring device. These lines of attack don’t often bear fruit, but perhaps you might get lucky and find something to show that the speed measurement may not have been reliable. Be forewarned, however, that some arguments would require you to have an expert witness testify and experts are expensive.

Laser has to be stationary. If offer is holding it up instead of having it rested on the door or mounted, the reading is wrong. True?

No. If officer holds the device properly a good speed reading can be obtained. If the officer moves the device then some degree of error, known as sweep error can occur. You’d need to show that the officer moved the unit sufficiently far enough that sweep error may have occurred. All the facts of the stop are needed to determine if this might be a good defense.

I did research some court cases online since I was curious. The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled on a few cases that there is no prima-facie unlawful speed. If I present the cases to the judge, will my case be dismissed?

Not knowing what cases these are I cannot comment on them. Under Ohio law (and many other states too) there are two types of speed limits. The first are posted speed limits. The second are statutory limits that apply when there is not a posted speed limit. ORC § 4511.21(C), which I quoted above, says that it is prima facie unlawful to exceed one of these limits. Given that the statute itself specifically says that, I cannot see a court holding to the contrary. The decisions you read may be been issued before that statute was enacted, may have dealt with a different violation, or perhaps you simply misread the cases you found.

Something was mentioned about lasers usually don't have judicial notice. What is this?

This refers to whether the court has found in prior cases that LIDAR is a sufficiently reliable method of measuring speed. If it has, then the state does not need to prove that and the court may simply take judicial notice of the fact that LIDAR is a reliable way to measure speed. The cases I see are mixed on that; so far it is not the case in all Ohio courts that they will take judicial notice of the reliability of LIDAR. Thus, if you want to contest this point you can do that. But be prepared because if the state does offer evidence to support the reliability of LIDAR you will need to counter that with expert testimony to have a shot at winning.

If officer doesn't show up, case dismissed. True?

That could happen, or the case might get continued.

The prosecutor will probably offer me a lesser charge. True?

That depends on the prosecutor and the policies of the office for which he or she works. It is pretty common in some courts to do that.

Since at/near isn't listed in that spot on ticket, ticket will be dismissed. True?

What subsection (E) of the statute says is that “the affidavit and warrant shall specify the time, place, and speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven.” So if the ticket you received is treated as the “affidavit and warrant” then it must have that information. Otherwise, the ticket need not have it. I have not researched whether the ticket is regarded as the affidavit and warrant, but you would need to find that link in the case law to make a good argument that the ticket was required to have it.

If ANYTHING on the ticket is blank or wrong relating to this violation, it is invalid. True?

In general that is not true. Anything that the statute does not require to appear on the ticket is generally hearsay and not admissible anyway. It is what the officer says at the hearing that would really matter.

I did plead not guilty (I don't believe I was going that fast). I also waived my right to a speedy trial. I was told I was wrong to waive. Another said I can change that back to a right to a speedy trial. Who is right?

You might be able to revoke your waiver, but that likely wouldn't help you get the ticket dismissed before the current date that your trial is set as you did waive the speedy trial and agreed to setting that trial date. Where I practice all that this would do is prevent future continuances by the prosecution.

If you really want to win on this, get a traffic attorney to represent you. If you don't understand the rules of evidence, the rules of procedure, and have a good grasp of the statute and the case law you will be at a distinct disadvantage against the prosecutor.

 

[HighwayMan]

If the officer moves the device then some degree of error, known as sweep error can occur. You’d need to show that the officer moved the unit sufficiently far enough that sweep error may have occurred.

Modern lidar sets detect sweep error and will display an error message. If the set locks in to a target and displays speed and distance then there is no sweep error.

I would be more inclined to dispute the testing of the set prior to use and whether the trooper did test it, which is usually required. Three tests are performed - internal calibration test, distance test, and scope alignment test.

 

[HighwayMan]

Highwayman...How does one "attack" evidence? Do you just walk up to said evidence and punch it?

No, in New York, at least, a deadly weapon of some sort must be used, specifically one of those mentioned in section 265.01 of the New York State Penal Law.

 

[Just Blue]

No, in New York, at least, a deadly weapon of some sort must be used, specifically one of those mentioned in section 265.01 of the New York State Penal Law.

lol....

**************.

 

[Taximule]

You all are great. 😂 I figured that I was getting wrong info.