P v. Nice (6th Dist.) A Policeman's Estimation of a Car's Speed May Constitute Reasonable Suspicion of Speeding

Mr. Nice was a passenger in a car that a policeman estimated was doing 35-40 in a 25 zone.  The policeman pulled the car over.  The driver admitted to having done some meth and said there may be some meth in the car.  Searches of the car and a residence followed, yielding a substantial stash of drugs and a few guns.

After he was charged, Nice moved to suppress the drugs and guns alleging the policeman did not have reasonable suspicion the car was speeding.  At a hearing on the motion, the policeman testified he had

taken a 40-hour in-house speed radar estimation class and had probably completed at least a thousand speed estimations with or without radar during his 14 years as a police officer. His training and field experience included taking visual speed estimates while standing still, as well as while moving.

The trial court denied the motion and Nice appealed.

The Sixth District affirms.

Anyone looking to lawyers and judges for scientific or mathematical literacy must be prepared to be disappointed.  This case is no different.  Essentially the panel holds that because the estimation here was of a speed 40-60% greater than the speed limit, the estimate constitutes reasonable suspicion of speeding, distinguishing this case from a Fourth Circuit case where an estimate 7% over the limit was held not to constitute probable cause of speeding (note to police:  shoot high!).  

The true threshold question is whether it has ever been shown, by statistically valid data, that people can accurately estimate speeds visually, and if so, to what degree of error.  The proper question is not whether a particular policeman took a "40-hour in-house speed radar estimation class" (whatever "speed radar" is).  If a police department offers training for something, is that enough to establish the technique is worthy of consideration?  How about a 40-hour phrenology class?  An in-house training class in astrological crime detection?  If a policeman has taken a 400-hour class in estimating DNA matches by visual comparisons of a person and blood from an unknown source, and passes that class with an A+, shouldn't his estimation that the blood came from suspect Mr. A constitute probable cause to arrest Mr. A?

It's a good thing for the State that "visual estimation of speed" was not statistically tested.  A study in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology took a group of young US Air Force officers who had been trained to estimate speeds and subjected them to controlled testing.  The officers observed a car traveling at 12 mph and were asked to estimate the car's speed.  The estimates were from 10 mph to 50 mph, with a standard deviation of 10.2 mph.  A British study replicated these results.  

The other annoyance in judicial considerations of bogus police techniques is an excerebrose adherence to the specious principle that "experience" (repetition) equates to reliability.  That someone has estimated speeds over a thousand times is not the same as saying that person can do it with accuracy.  My neighbor has played various lotteries thousands of times, his ability to predict the numbers does not increase with each play.  Repetition of a technique which has not been demonstrated to be reliable does not establish statistical reliability, at least among the scientifically literate.

But alas our judiciary has no membership in that club.