Driving too slow no reason for stop

Driving too slow no reason for stop
Ohio court tosses DUI conviction
BY DAN HORN | ENQUIRER.COM

Driving too slow on the highway is not reason enough for police to
stop someone on suspicion of drunken driving, an appeals court says.

The Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals threw out the conviction of a
Cincinnati man after concluding that police were wrong to have pulled
him over for driving about 20 mph below the speed limit.

"Slow driving alone does not create a reasonable suspicion" of drunken
driving, Judge Mark Painter wrote in the court's 3-0 decision Friday.

Judges Lee Hildebrandt Jr. and Ralph Winkler joined in the decision.

Ohio law allows police to charge motorists for driving too slow, but
only if they are creating a hazard or impeding traffic. Because
neither occurred in this case, the appeals court ruled, the traffic
stop was unconstitutional.

Prosecutor Joe Deters on Monday said he would appeal the decision to
the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that driving too slow can be just as
hazardous as driving too fast.

"When somebody is driving 45 miles per hour on the expressway, it
could cause a great danger to others," Deters said. "We think police
have probable cause to stop someone driving in that fashion."

The case began in November 2004 when Blue Ash police pulled over
Brandon Bacher on Interstate 71. Police clocked him driving 23 mph
below the 65 mph speed limit.

The officer reported that Bacher, 25, smelled of alcohol, failed a
sobriety test and complained about being stopped. At one point, he
told police that he "was not driving all that fast."

The officer charged Bacher with driving too slow and operating a
vehicle under the influence.

Bacher's attorney, Matthew Ernst, said the evidence of drunken driving
is inadmissible because the traffic stop was unconstitutional.

In the court's opinion, Painter noted that Bacher clearly was
intoxicated and said the court's ruling should not be seen as
vindication.

In an unusual reference for an appeals court, Painter quoted comedian
Ron White's standup performance "Tater Salad" when referring to
Bacher's post-arrest behavior: "Clearly Bacher had the right to remain
silent, but not the ability."
http://tinyurl.com/37v9wm

- "Prosecutor Joe Deters on Monday said he would appeal the decision
to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that driving too slow can be just
as hazardous as driving too fast."

I guess the OH SC might be that stupid, but I'd bet they're not.
-----

- gpsman

On Feb 27, 12:29 pm, "gpsman" > wrote:
> Driving too slow no reason for stop
> Ohio court tosses DUI conviction
> BY DAN HORN | ENQUIRER.COM
>
> Driving too slow on the highway is not reason enough for police to
> stop someone on suspicion of drunken driving, an appeals court says.
>
> The Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals threw out the conviction of a
> Cincinnati man after concluding that police were wrong to have pulled
> him over for driving about 20 mph below the speed limit.
>
> "Slow driving alone does not create a reasonable suspicion" of drunken
> driving, Judge Mark Painter wrote in the court's 3-0 decision Friday.
>
> Judges Lee Hildebrandt Jr. and Ralph Winkler joined in the decision.
>
> Ohio law allows police to charge motorists for driving too slow, but
> only if they are creating a hazard or impeding traffic. Because
> neither occurred in this case, the appeals court ruled, the traffic
> stop was unconstitutional.
>
> Prosecutor Joe Deters on Monday said he would appeal the decision to
> the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that driving too slow can be just as
> hazardous as driving too fast.
>
> "When somebody is driving 45 miles per hour on the expressway, it
> could cause a great danger to others," Deters said. "We think police
> have probable cause to stop someone driving in that fashion."
>
> The case began in November 2004 when Blue Ash police pulled over
> Brandon Bacher on Interstate 71. Police clocked him driving 23 mph
> below the 65 mph speed limit.
>
> The officer reported that Bacher, 25, smelled of alcohol, failed a
> sobriety test and complained about being stopped. At one point, he
> told police that he "was not driving all that fast."
>
> The officer charged Bacher with driving too slow and operating a
> vehicle under the influence.
>
> Bacher's attorney, Matthew Ernst, said the evidence of drunken driving
> is inadmissible because the traffic stop was unconstitutional.
>
> In the court's opinion, Painter noted that Bacher clearly was
> intoxicated and said the court's ruling should not be seen as
> vindication.
>
> In an unusual reference for an appeals court, Painter quoted comedian
> Ron White's standup performance "Tater Salad" when referring to
> Bacher's post-arrest behavior: "Clearly Bacher had the right to remain
> silent, but not the ability."http://tinyurl.com/37v9wm
>
> - "Prosecutor Joe Deters on Monday said he would appeal the decision
> to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that driving too slow can be just
> as hazardous as driving too fast."
>
> I guess the OH SC might be that stupid, but I'd bet they're not.
> -----
>
> - gpsman

Makes me wonder what the posted minimum is in Ohio. It's 40 in
Missouri and 45 in Illinois and Indiana. If the posted minimum is
less whan what the DUI guy was driving, I can see the judge's point.
That does not excuse the driver's behavior.

In article .com>, MLOM wrote:

>> Driving too slow on the highway is not reason enough for police to
>> stop someone on suspicion of drunken driving, an appeals court says.

And so goes the claim that such stops don't happen.

>> "When somebody is driving 45 miles per hour on the expressway, it
>> could cause a great danger to others," Deters said. "We think police
>> have probable cause to stop someone driving in that fashion."

Really? On some expressways in the chicago area faster than 45mph is
*speeding*. Never mind that traffic is doing 65-70

Brent P wrote:

> Really? On some expressways in the chicago area faster than 45mph is
> *speeding*. Never mind that traffic is doing 65-70


Yes, I've seen that and that kind of situation ****es me off. If you're
not a local and come upon an unusually low speed zone on a freeway you
take it seriously and slow down (at least I do). If the locals however
do not take the sign seriously it creates a dangerous situation because
of resulting large speed differentials.

So the cops should either enforce the limit or remove the sign.

On Feb 27, 1:50 pm, 223rem > wrote:

> So the cops should either enforce the limit or remove the sign.

There's one I agree with!

On Feb 27, 7:59 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." > wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
>
> > Driving too slow no reason for stop
> > Ohio court tosses DUI conviction
> > BY DAN HORN | ENQUIRER.COM
>
> > Driving too slow on the highway is not reason enough for police to
> > stop someone on suspicion of drunken driving, an appeals court says.
>
> > The Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals threw out the conviction of a
> > Cincinnati man after concluding that police were wrong to have pulled
> > him over for driving about 20 mph below the speed limit.
>
> > "Slow driving alone does not create a reasonable suspicion" of drunken
> > driving, Judge Mark Painter wrote in the court's 3-0 decision Friday.
>
> Was there any expert testimony supporting (or refuting) this? Or did the
> judge just pull this opinion out of his posterior?
>
> --
> Paul Hovnanian
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> "There's something vewy scwewy going on awound here." -- Elmer Fudd

There are all kinds of reasons for 'driving slow', not just DUI. I see
nothing odd at all in the ruling. Driving slow _is_ an indication
that he _might_ be DUI and thus a reason to observe his driving for
additional clues but by itself it is not sufficient just as the judge
ruled.

Harry K

gpsman wrote:
>
> Driving too slow no reason for stop
> Ohio court tosses DUI conviction
> BY DAN HORN | ENQUIRER.COM
>
> Driving too slow on the highway is not reason enough for police to
> stop someone on suspicion of drunken driving, an appeals court says.
>
> The Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals threw out the conviction of a
> Cincinnati man after concluding that police were wrong to have pulled
> him over for driving about 20 mph below the speed limit.
>
> "Slow driving alone does not create a reasonable suspicion" of drunken
> driving, Judge Mark Painter wrote in the court's 3-0 decision Friday.

Was there any expert testimony supporting (or refuting) this? Or did the
judge just pull this opinion out of his posterior?

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's something vewy scwewy going on awound here." -- Elmer Fudd

On Feb 27, 11:11 am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article .com>, MLOM wrote:
> >> Driving too slow on the highway is not reason enough for police to
> >> stop someone on suspicion of drunken driving, an appeals court says.
>
> And so goes the claim that such stops don't happen.
>
<snip>

So you still don't see the difference between being stopped for legal
cause and 'driving slow' ? He wasn't stopped 'for driving slow'. He
was stopped 'for suspicion of DUI'. There is a world of difference
there.

The driving slow was sufficient to continue to observe but not for the
stop just as the judge ruled

Harry K

In article . com>, Harry K wrote:
> On Feb 27, 11:11 am, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article .com>, MLOM wrote:
>> >> Driving too slow on the highway is not reason enough for police to
>> >> stop someone on suspicion of drunken driving, an appeals court says.
>>
>> And so goes the claim that such stops don't happen.
>>
><snip>
>
> So you still don't see the difference between being stopped for legal
> cause and 'driving slow' ? He wasn't stopped 'for driving slow'. He
> was stopped 'for suspicion of DUI'. There is a world of difference
> there.

Driving slow was the cause for suspicion of DUI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH!

> The driving slow was sufficient to continue to observe but not for the
> stop just as the judge ruled

That doesn't change the fact that over the years I've been told in this
group that stops for 'suspicion of DUI' where the 'suspicion' is driving
too slow don't happen. I've been told I was paranoid when I related
stories of cops following me when I drove 'slowly' (aka the posted speed
limit or just slightly slower) when I knew damn well they were following
me waiting for the ticky-tackiest violation to pull me over for. This
court case is proof what I say does happen.

Of course that doesn't change the one in texas.... All a cop has to do is
say it fits a pattern of drug runners or something...

On Feb 27, 10:16 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article . com>, Harry K wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 11:11 am, (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> >> In article .com>, MLOM wrote:
> >> >> Driving too slow on the highway is not reason enough for police to
> >> >> stop someone on suspicion of drunken driving, an appeals court says.
>
> >> And so goes the claim that such stops don't happen.
>
> ><snip>
>
> > So you still don't see the difference between being stopped for legal
> > cause and 'driving slow' ? He wasn't stopped 'for driving slow'. He
> > was stopped 'for suspicion of DUI'. There is a world of difference
> > there.
>
> Driving slow was the cause for suspicion of DUI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH!
>
> > The driving slow was sufficient to continue to observe but not for the
> > stop just as the judge ruled
>
> That doesn't change the fact that over the years I've been told in this
> group that stops for 'suspicion of DUI' where the 'suspicion' is driving
> too slow don't happen. I've been told I was paranoid when I related
> stories of cops following me when I drove 'slowly' (aka the posted speed
> limit or just slightly slower) when I knew damn well they were following
> me waiting for the ticky-tackiest violation to pull me over for. This
> court case is proof what I say does happen.
>
> Of course that doesn't change the one in texas.... All a cop has to do is
> say it fits a pattern of drug runners or something...

And the local cops are the stickiest. Go through a small town some
time, they treat any car that they do not immediately recognize (as in
being acquainted with the driver) as a suspect of some sort. I
usually am my most paranoid in Overland Park, Kansas: posted speed
limit on the Interstate is 60, traffic flows 65-70, and I'm usually
expecting to be stopped for 2 violations: speeding and disrupting
traffic flow. That has not happened, knock on wood. Any speeding
ticket is minimum $100 because it's the land of minimum $1/4M new
housing construction and expect everyone to be flowing in cash.