Thanks for the link Twolane. After sorting through all the legalese, and trying to read between the lines, it appears that we have a case of an officer running radar and pulling an alleged violator clocked at 82 mph in a 60 mph zone. Being a nice fellow, he wrote the ticket for 79 mph to stay below the 20 mph over the limit threshold, whereupon the alleged violator can no longer just pay a fine but must also appear in court (meaning the officer must appear as well). So far, nothing terribly abnormal. But for whatever reason, the alleged violator decides to go to court anyway and fight the ticket.
Now we get to trial, and the alleged violator's attorney attempts the old "let me see your certification to operate that particular radar" defense strategy (I wonder if he also asked to see certification of calibration?). Oh crap, the officer didn't bring his certificate with him, and I get the impression this is where the visual speed calculation came into play. Throw out the radar, then we'll just say we verified the speed visually. Somehow, though, the 82 mph radar reading becomes 70 mph "visually", even though the ticket was written for 79 mph. Talk about measurement error and a huge tolerance. That's right up there with Harley's crank runout tolerance.
If someone is properly trained in visual speed estimation, and they have known distances over which they can time an object, I can see being able to say someone was grossly exceeding the limit. But if you're running radar, what are the odds that you are sitting there running mental calculations (in heavy traffic) on various vehicles? Isn't that why we have radar, so the officer doesn't have to calculate that stuff? The whole thing smells funny to me. And the idea that the state Supreme Court had nothing better to do than hear this BS should give us an idea of how much waste there is in the Judicial branch of government.
Jerry