Can cops speed without their lights/siren on?

[Yup!]

That isn't the point of this thread at all... The point I wanted to have addressed was by starting this thread was this: can evidence that was obtained illegally by police, be used against me? Others have commented on this, and I think I've gotten all the useful info I can from this thread.

I do appreciate everyone's responses, though! I will post back when I find out what happens in my court case and/or if the prosecutor or police captain get back with me sooner with a hopefully positive outcome.

Despite what many have stated, I do have hope of a positive outcome.

IMO it wasnt obtained illegally. Your rights were not violated as a result of their actions. They may or may not have been breaking the law, but their breaking the law did not entice you to break the law.

If a cop illegally parks in a parking spot, while he runs into the store to make a purchase, and while inside he just happens to interrupt a robbery in progress, The case will not get thrown out because the cop was double parked.

 

[rw496]

but they arent the defendants. You are. You keep going back to, the "if they can, so can I" theory, or the 'everyone else was doing it' theory. Neither have really been a solid defense.

If everyone on the highway was going 100MPH, and you were the one that got pulled over, the judge wont care who else was doing what. He's simply going to determine if YOU were going 100. What everyone else was doing is irrelevant.

exactly. Like your mother said, "If everyone else jumped off a bridge...." or something like that.

 

[Pocketman]

This happens all the time. I have been responding to calls (that I haven't been dispatched to) and take it tick above the speed limit. For instance, if there's a bar fight somewhere, and two officers are dispatched to it, I'll start moving that way in case it situation requires more units. I'm not going "balls to the wall," but I'm certainly going a bit faster. I won't mark myself "enroute," so I can stay in service if the situation isn't that serious. Now if during the time I'm heading that way, the situation is taken care of, I'll bring it down to my normal patrol speed... and then address the people that thought because I was speeding (unknown to them why) they thought that they should too.

Kutnupe's explanation is spot on. Police may "violate" traffic regulations in the performance of their duties, but are still responsible for not endangering other motorists. Not suppose to step it up going for doughnuts, but it happens. Bottom line, regardless of how the officer was driving, OP was apparently speeding.

Something else to keep in mind. There are people witnessing the situation. It is not uncommon for officers to ignore minor infractions. There are just too many of them to stop. If other motorists are present, the officer is put into an uncomfortable situation. How does it then look to others if the infraction is overlooked?

BTW - "Because we are police" was not a good response to the question.

 

[Chefcook]

You will be a lot better off if you just pay the ticket and forget it. I tried to fight a ticket a few years ago and I learned my lesson then. In my case the officer hadn't even clocked me he clocked one car speeding through a group of cars and pulled all 5 cars over and issued tickets. Myself and 2 of the other 5 drivers showed up to contest the ticket. The officers only testimony was that he writes a lot of tickets and cant be expected to remember all the particulars to every one. The judge took all three cases separately I went last the first guy acted like a know it all azzhole to the judge and got no reduction of any kind neither did the second guy. I was very respectful to the judge and the court and got it reduced from 75 in a 55 to 65 in a 55 even with the reduction the addition of court costs for appearing made it cost more than it would have been if I had just payed the ticket. Its just my opinion but look dude you were speeding and then ya got caught. Now your trying to wiggle out of it. One way or another you are going to pay. Rather it be to the court or to a lawyer whatever, your gonna pay. I say just man up and pay the ticket and forget it...

 

[INMIline]

If you're worried about insurance. Then this is your best option. You may be able to plea it down to a non moving violation. You may pay slightly more than the actual offense. But will not go on your driving record.

I am not saying admit guilt. But just explain to the Prosecuter. He/she may offer a deal.

Talk to the Prosecutor...

 

[Brandon]

I may of missed it, but has anyone said Rule number one. Do NOT talk to the police? Would of helped a defence here.

 

[Brandon]

If you're worried about insurance. Then [STRIKE]this is your best option. You may be able to plea it down to a non moving violation. You may pay slightly more than the actual offense. But will not go on your driving record.

I am not saying admit guilt. But just explain to the Prosecuter. He/she may offer a deal.[/STRIKE] don't speed.

fixed it for ya

 

[Kutnupe14]

I may of missed it, but has anyone said Rule number one. Do NOT talk to the police? Would of helped a defence here.

I hate to admit it, but in this case you're probably right.

 

[GBuck]

The bottom line is, whether they were on a run or not, you were speeding. If you passed a cop car and the cop is willing to admit that he was traveling 20 over, you clearly were too. It's not like 20 over is a couple mph. That is a large amount over. He may get reprimanded for traveling faster than the posted if he wasn't on a run, but that doesn't excuse that you were also traveling too fast. "Two wrongs don't make a right," as the saying goes.

 

[rw496]

If you're worried about insurance. Then this is your best option. You may be able to plea it down to a non moving violation. You may pay slightly more than the actual offense. But will not go on your driving record.

I am not saying admit guilt. But just explain to the Prosecuter. He/she may offer a deal.

most departments offer a deferral program for a few dollars more..keeps it off your record at least

 

[bglaze]

Well, it seems most of you are right. The county police chief's response was that police officers sometimes "pick up the pace" if they are on a call. He did not confirm if these officers were actually on a call.

This is the accepted behavior, because they are only allowed to use their lights and sirens so much for insurance reasons supposedly.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

During the course of my LEO career I made many more emergency runs WITHOUT lights and siren than I did with them. This is due to the fact that in some emergencies it is an absolute necessity for the police to approach the call silently, particularly if an innocent victim could be harmed by a suspect alarmed by the approach of the police.

This included speeding and running red lights and stop signs (AFTER coming to a stop to ensure that the move could be made safely).

Like many states, Ohio has no legal provision for this. Our superiors understood this and did not prohibit this practice, but they made it very clear that any officer operating this way was SOLELY responsible for insuring that it was done safely. Have an accident, and we-all-do-it was NOT a defense.

Anyone who reads my posts here knows that I am not an apologist for law enforcement nor do I ordinarily endorse the idea that LEOs should have any special privileges over the public at large. But this practice, regardless of the state of the law, is an absolute necessity.

Lives depends on it.

 

[iChokePeople]

Have we covered the fact that this was a construction zone, according to the officer in the video? That's a nice twist. If you were my best friend or son, I'd tell you to STFU, pay the ticket, and be glad you didn't get the penalty advertised on many/most construction zone signs. I'd also tell you that if you really can't tell the difference between something > 50mph and 30mph when you're driving, there's an issue. I might also point out that your argument sounds a lot like the arguments my 13-year old tries to use when he gets caught for something.

Someone had to be THAT GUY, might as well be me.

 

[Brandon]

Have we covered the fact that this was a construction zone, according to the officer in the video? That's a nice twist. If you were my best friend or son, I'd tell you to STFU, pay the ticket, and be glad you didn't get the penalty advertised on many/most construction zone signs. I'd also tell you that if you really can't tell the difference between something > 50mph and 30mph when you're driving, there's an issue. I might also point out that your argument sounds a lot like the arguments my 13-year old tries to use when he gets caught for something.

Someone had to be THAT GUY, might as well be me.

Well said.

 

[snowman46919]

During the course of my LEO career I made many more emergency runs WITHOUT lights and siren than I did with them. This is due to the fact that in some emergencies it is an absolute necessity for the police to approach the call silently, particularly if an innocent victim could be harmed by a suspect alarmed by the approach of the police.

This included speeding and running red lights and stop signs (AFTER coming to a stop to ensure that the move could be made safely).

Like many states, Ohio has no legal provision for this. Our superiors understood this and did not prohibit this practice, but they made it very clear that any officer operating this way was SOLELY responsible for insuring that it was done safely. Have an accident, and we-all-do-it was NOT a defense.

Anyone who reads my posts here knows that I am not an apologist for law enforcement nor do I ordinarily endorse the idea that LEOs should have any special privileges over the public at large. But this practice, regardless of the state of the law, is an absolute necessity.

Lives depends on it.

Couldn't the argument be made that you could travel lights and sirens, or even lights only until you reach that neighborhood or what not so that the public is somewhat aware of your presence instead of thinking,"Look at that jack wagon in the crown vic."

 

[Denny347]

Couldn't the argument be made that you could travel lights and sirens, or even lights only until you reach that neighborhood or what not so that the public is somewhat aware of your presence instead of thinking,"Look at that jack wagon in the crown vic."

Turning my lights on turns the logic centers OFF of drivers around me. Only if I MUST, will I turn them on. Speeding is so much less dangerous than people seeing my lights and stopping in the middle of the street. Not move to the right but everyone STOPS where they are. Talk about **** poor driving. I keep having to swerve back and forth to avoid hitting drivers. I despise running hot.

 

[chizzle]

Well, it seems most of you are right. The county police chief's response was that police officers sometimes "pick up the pace" if they are on a call. He did not confirm if these officers were actually on a call.

This is the accepted behavior, because they are only allowed to use their lights and sirens so much for insurance reasons supposedly.

When fighting a speeding ticket where a cop used a radar gun, isn't it fairly common practice to request the calibration records for that radar gun to ensure it is accurate? Since in this case the officer was using the car's speedometer as his "radar gun", wouldn't it be equally viable to request the calibration records for his car's speedometer? If none can be found, it may be grounds to dismiss the ticket.

 

[Brandon]

When fighting a speeding ticket where a cop used a radar gun, isn't it fairly common practice to request the calibration records for that radar gun to ensure it is accurate? Since in this case the officer was using the car's speedometer as his "radar gun", wouldn't it be equally viable to request the calibration records for his car's speedometer? If none can be found, it may be grounds to dismiss the ticket.

What's the point when the op admitted to speeding?

 

[Yup!]

When fighting a speeding ticket where a cop used a radar gun, isn't it fairly common practice to request the calibration records for that radar gun to ensure it is accurate? Since in this case the officer was using the car's speedometer as his "radar gun", wouldn't it be equally viable to request the calibration records for his car's speedometer? If none can be found, it may be grounds to dismiss the ticket.

I don't know if IC allows it, but most states have an infraction called imprudent speed or too fast for conditions, all the cops needs to say is the OP was going faster than he should have. No calibration needed.

Requesting calibration records is just wasting everyone time energy and money. No wonder the fines are so high, and there's 'never a cop around when you need one' you've got them all tied up in court collecting overtime!

 

[chizzle]

I don't know if IC allows it, but most states have an infraction called imprudent speed or too fast for conditions, all the cops needs to say is the OP was going faster than he should have. No calibration needed.

Requesting calibration records is just wasting everyone time energy and money. No wonder the fines are so high, and there's 'never a cop around when you need one' you've got them all tied up in court collecting overtime!

If I earnestly believed that I wasn't speeding as the cops implied, then I think the device that the officers referenced as proof would be very important to me making the decision whether to fight the ticket or whether to pay the fine. In this case, all the OP has done is admit to driving 5 mph faster than a cop; how fast the cop was actually going is up for argument.

While I understand that it takes time out of the cop's day to get these calibration records, I think it is important that stops like this are handled properly and that the tools used to judge the OP's infraction work as design. Wouldn't it be a b*tch if the speedometer on the cop's car actually was inaccurate, resulting in the ticket?