Police in Vermont can guess you're speeding just by looking at you.
(Image shows police in Ohio guessing about a cars speed)
A police officer in Vermont can now pull over any vehicle if he has a feeling it may be speeding. The state's highest court concluded last Friday that a visual estimate of speed sufficed to justify a traffic stop.
The court considered the combined cases of Todd Dunham and Heidi Tatham. On December 10, 2011, a Vermont State Trooper was sitting in a parking lot in Fairlee when Dunham drove past in his pickup truck on Route 5. Because of the distance, the trooper was unable to use radar, but he turned his head around, looking across his shoulder to guess Dunham, who by then was more than 100 feet away, was doing 45 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. Dunham was stopped and found to be driving under the influence (DUI).
On September 15, 2011, another trooper in Bradford saw Tatham driving on Main Street. The trooper was positioned perpendicular to Tatham, making a radar reading impossible so he guessed she was traveling at 45 MPH in a 25 MPH zone. Tatham was also stopped and eventually arrested for DUI. Both drivers moved to suppress the evidence against them because, they argued, the troopers had no probable cause to stop them on a mere hunch that they might be speeding. The Vermont court explained the conditions for a legitimate stop.
"A mere conclusory statement as to a violation will not suffice," Justice Marilyn Skoglund wrote. "An officer must articulate facts, which, in light of his experience and personal knowledge, together with reasonable inferences drawn from those facts, would warrant a temporary intrusion on the freedom of the person detained."
The ruling found the visual guess of a speed met the standard of an articulable fact. In defense of the position, the Vermont justices cited the authority of a federal case that had been based on a 2010 Ohio Supreme Court decision upholding visual estimates. In a more recent federal ruling, however, the Fourth Circuit US Court of Appeals declared such estimates "absurd." In addition, the Ohio legislature wasted no time in enacting a law that directly overturned the Ohio Supreme Court's decision (view law). The Vermont court did not agree.
"A police officer does not need to know the exact speed at which an automobile is traveling in order to make a stop for a traffic violation," Justice Skoglund ruled. "More often, evidence that officers receive proper roadside and academy training, spend considerable time on road patrol, gain experience estimating speed and comparing estimates against radar, and historically exhibit a margin of error of only a few miles per hour, serves to qualify officers to estimate speed"
The officers involved in the case testified their training allowed them to reliably conduct a visual estimate within 5 MPH of a vehicle's actual speed. The court found such rough accuracy more than sufficient.
"What is more compelling in these cases, is the fact that in both instances the observed speed was significantly higher than the posted speed limit, such that the difference would be discernible to a casual observer, particularly a trained law enforcement officer."
The court found the use of radar and laser guns merely makes it easier to obtain a conviction without the need of establishing a police officer's training in visual estimates.
"It is not disputed that both officers' conclusions would have been further bolstered by referencing time and distance, pacing methods, or through mechanical verification," Justice Skoglund concluded. "Nonetheless, based on the significant speed differentials, as well as the officers' experience and training, we find that the trial courts' conclusions that both officers had reasonable suspicion to effect the traffic stop is supported by the evidence."
http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/vt-estimate.asp
Vermont police can read your mail at a traffic stop:
A cop who violated a mother's rights by reading her mail in a traffic stop and ensuing search is entitled to qualified immunity, the 2nd Circuit ruled.
Vermont state trooper Daniel Trottier caught Marie Winfield doing 20 mph over the speed limit on May 26, 2007. Winfield and her son Jason had been traveling north on Interstate 89 in Vermont to visit her father in Montreal.
Noticing that Jason would not make eye contact with Trottier, and that Winfield's leg was shaking as she ate a Powerbar in "a hurried manner," Trottier called for backup.
After state trooper Aimee Nolan arrived, Trottier said he noticed Winfield was shaking. He then asked if there was anything in her car he should "know about."
Winfield explained she was "probably tired" from her daughter's high school graduation from the night before, and gave Trottier consent to search her car.
When Trottier found an envelope addressed either to or from a court, he opened it and read what was inside - a court document pertaining to the arrest of Winfield's husband "for possession," and a letter that Winfield had written to a judge.
Trottier issued Winfield a speeding citation and let her drive away.
The Winfields sued Trottier and Nolan, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.
A federal judge in Vermont denied Trottier qualified immunity, holding that "no reasonable understanding of the exchange between Ms. Winfield and Trooper Trottier could be construed as consent for Trooper Trottier to read Ms. Winfield's mail, regardless of to whom or from whom [the mail] was addressed."
The 2nd Circuit concluded last week that Trottier had violated the Fourth Amendment since Winfield did not consent to having her mail read.
"The typical reasonable person would not assume that consent to a general search of a car for contraband would include consent to read personal papers," Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote for a three-judge panel. "Once Trottier opened the envelope and discovered neither large sums of money nor contraband, he should have moved on to search the rest of the car. Trottier exceeded the scope of Winfield's consent when he read the letter.
"Trottier argues that he read her mail because he thought it might contain evidence of a parole or probation violation. That is a conceivable rationale for reading mail, just as Trottier might have perused love letters for evidence of statutory rape, or brokerage receipts for evidence of insider trading. But the issue is whether a reasonable person would believe that the consent given by Winfield authorized such a search for such a purpose. We think not. And Trottier cites no persuasive authority in his support."
Because Winfield's right was not "clearly established," however, the 2nd Circuit said Trottier did qualify for immunity.
"The right at issue is properly stated as follows: It is a Fourth Amendment violation when a police officer reads a suspect's private papers, the text of which is not in plain view, while conducting a search authorized solely by the suspect's generalized consent to search the area in which the papers are found," Jacobs wrote. "No prior case in the 2nd Circuit has so held. Accordingly, Trottier's actions were '"objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken,"' and he is entitled to qualified immunity."
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/11/mailcop.pdf
Woman cited for driving too slowly in left lane, she was driving 2 mph under the speed limit:
A Maryland woman was shocked after she received a traffic ticket -- but it wasn't for speeding.
In fact, she was driving 2 mph under the speed limit.
She was driving in the left lane of I-95 on Laurel last Friday when she was pulled over and cited for failing to move right. According to the citation, she had been driving 63 mph in a 65 mph zone.
The woman, who didn't want her name used, says she's never gotten a ticket before.
"I was really shocked," she told News4. "I thought, 'Oh my God, you've got to be kidding me'."
The driver has filed a complaint with Maryland State Police and plans to fight the ticket.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Laurel-Maryland-Ticket-Driving-Too-Slow-197285901.html