Rick . . if this was just another "I F'd up" post, I might not have got involved.

I'm one of those drivers that has always moved over/slowed down, even before the signs came out. I certainly didn't have any problem when the signs came out but when I began to read how the law was being applied, I started to wonder if this wasn't a little bit like the seat belt laws . . It was perfectly legitimate but, in the way it was being enforced, it looked a lot like just another excuse to pull someone over. If you read the OUI cases, you'll see what I mean.

The OP states that, if he loses, he's going to be out of a job. So, I've looked a little deeper because I wouldn't want to lose my job to a screw that's had his hat blown off. My thinking is that, if I can help the OP to understand what he's up against, he can be prepared, win his case and avoid the cost of an appeal. If he's going to lose, he'll have a better idea of how he lost. In any event, we'll all have a few more Drivers who'll be a little more cognizant of how close they're following and what might lie ahead.

 

And like I said, I searched it on that site without registering.

Ok, your point? The officer who cited the OP said that he wasn't. Now it is up to the OP to prove that statement incorrect. How exactly do you propose he is to prove that he was indeed "proceeding with caution?" Because he didn't kill anyone? That could have been dumb luck. As I've already said, answering that question is completely subjective. The officer says he wasn't, which is why he was given a citation. Even the OP states that he couldn't slow down more before encountering the emergency vehicle, which indicates a desire to. Now if the OP already felt he was "proceeding with caution," why would he want to slow down more? So that he can "proceed with more caution?":lol:

No, the finder of fact is the prosecution, of which the officer is an extension. The court is the "trier of fact"

 

Welcome to America, land of guilty till proven innocent. Looks like yet another driver falls victim to the "revenue stream" for Ohio. They can't get us for speeding so much anymore, have to get that all mighty dollar from truckers somehow. Maybe they're using the money from bogus tickets like these to get the cops all calibrated eye surgery so they don't need radar to tell exactly how fast I'm going. Wish I could look at a moving vehicle and tell how fast it was moving, I wouldn't even need a speedo in my truck anymore. Free up some dash space. They should get their own TV show, instead of Reno 911, and call it The Six Million Dollar BEARS. Anyway, sorry about your luck OP, getting caught up in this state-run money racket.

 

'Nuf said. You have no idea what the heck you're talking about. The burden of proof is on the state.

 

The state will prove their case with expert testimony from the cop. The defense then needs to prove that testimony to be wrong. This is basic courtroom procedure. If you honestly believe you don't need to disprove the prosecutor's case, then you clearly have no idea how a court works. "Innocent until proven guilty" is done the second the cop testifies. Then it's "guilty until proven innocent."

 

Good try, but NO! Just because he is a cop does not mean he is an expert. I'm not sure about Ohio but there is no where that I know of that has any training for an LEO to judge the speed of a vehicle with the eye that will stand up in court. As far as the driver staying in the right lane, can the cop show that the driver could have moved over? There is no way ( except for video from another car or an eye witness ). As far as "safe manner" goes, how can the cop prove unsafe? He didn't hit him did he? :lol:

If the OP puts up any kind of defense the charges should be thrown out. Now you have to admit I'm right because I ( was ) a cop and that makes me an expert in all matters of traffic violations. You have no defense unless you bring in another "expert" because my decision has more weight.


Sorry Rev. It don't work that way. The cop HAS to PROVE his case and only a small amount of the finding of the facts will poke holes in the cops case. I can think of only 2 or 3 questions that it would take to have the charges dismissed. Those questions DO NOT have anything with proving his innocence but to poke holes in the cops case. There is a big difference.

Follow me here: :thumbsup: If you produce a GPS reading from the QC that shows that you were only going 35mph at the stated time then you are proving your innocence. If you ask the cop ( on the stand ) to show you his certification in judging speed with the necked eye, then you just blew his whole case.

 

He wasn't given a citation for going a certain speed.

The cop witnessed it.

No, the prosecutor needs to prove his case. He'll use the cop to do so.

The OP already admitted to going past at 55 mph because he was incapable of slowing down more once he saw the cop. The reason for that is because he was following the truck ahead of him too closely (7 seconds according to the OP). I'm sure the court has a definition of what constitutes "yielding" under the law. If they don't, then the OP won the case. If they do, and can show the OP didn't do those things, then he lost. The fact that he was so free with the information here (that he couldn't slow down in time because of the truck in front of him) leads me to believe he also disclosed this, at least in part, to the cop.

 

Actually Rev I didnt tell the cop anything other then i couldnt get over and said i was sorry i shook his car. Either way i expect to lose when i go to court in early november. ill let you know

 

And as a side note Interstate Trucker told my employer about this ticket. Safety called me last week about it. Luckily im NOT getting fired over it even though it will be 4 points if convicted.

 

Good news. Hopefully Interstate Trucker does a better job for you than they did for me.