SPEEDING: What if there is no evidence except the officer’s word?

Ohio courts are split on whether a trained officer's estimation of speed, with nothing more (e.g., laser or radar), is sufficient to support a prima facie speeding conviction. 

In the Second, Third, and Eighth Districts, the opinion of the officer that the defendant was speeding, based upon a visual estimation, without more, is not sufficient to sustain the conviction by proof beyond a reasonable doubt: State v. Meyers (Dec. 9, 2000), 2d Dist. No. 2000 CA 49, 2000 WL 1879104, at * 2; State v. Saphire, supra, 2000 WL 1803852; State v. Westerbeck (June 19, 1987), 3d Dist. No. 17-86-18, 1987 WL 13063; Broadview Hts. v. Abkemeier (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 633, 615 N.E.2d 656.

The First, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Districts have held that an officer's estimation of speed is sufficient to sustain a speeding conviction in a prima facie case. Cincinnati v. Dowling (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 198, 521 N.E.2d 1140; State v. Harkins (Aug. 5, 1987), 4th Dist. No. 431, 1987 WL 15492; State v. Wilson (Nov. 20, 1996), 9th Dist. No. 95CA006285, 1996 WL 668993; Columbus v. Bravi (Mar. 5, 1991), 10th Dist. No. 90AP-1135, 1991 WL 33095, at * 2; Kirtland Hills v. Logan (1984), 21 Ohio App.3d 67, 21 OBR 71, 486 N.E.2d 231; State v. Jones (Nov. 8, 1991), 11th Dist. No. 91-T-4508, 1991 WL 233644, at * 2.