Case Title: Barberton v. Jenney

Citation: 2010-Ohio-2420

Docket Number: 20091069

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Barberton v. Jenney, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2420.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-2420 
CITY OF BARBERTON, APPELLEE, v. JENNEY, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Barberton v. Jenney, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2420.] 
A police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient 
evidence to support a conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 
4511.21(D) without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the 
officer is trained, certified, and experienced in visually estimating vehicle 
speed. 
(No. 2009-1069 — Submitted February 17, 2010 — Decided June 2, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 24423, 
2009-Ohio-1985. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
A police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient 
evidence to support a conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 
4511.21(D) without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the 
officer is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
or a similar organization that develops and implements training programs 
to meet the needs of law-enforcement professionals and the communities 
they serve, and is experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed. 
__________________ 
 
O’CONNOR, J. 
{¶ 1} In this appeal we determine whether a police officer’s unaided 
visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, by itself, is sufficient evidence of the 
vehicle’s speed to support a conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 
4511.21(D).  Appellant, Mark Jenney, argues that it is impossible for a police 
officer to visually estimate the exact speed of a moving object.  He asks the court 
to establish a bright-line rule that an officer’s visual estimation of speed, without 
other evidence to support it, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding. 
{¶ 2} A rational trier of fact could find testimony by a police officer who 
is trained, certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy (“OPOTA”) or a 
similar organization, and experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed, that he 
estimated a vehicle’s speed to be in excess of the posted limit sufficient evidence 
to establish a violation of R.C. 4511.21(D) beyond a reasonable doubt.  We 
therefore hold that a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s 
speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding in violation of 
R.C. 4511.21(D) without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the 
officer is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or a 
similar organization that develops and implements training programs to meet the 
needs of law-enforcement professionals and the communities they serve, and is 
experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed. 
Relevant Background 
{¶ 3} On July 3, 2008, Officer Christopher R. Santimarino was in a 
marked patrol car running stationary radar at southbound traffic on State Route 21 
in Copley Township, Ohio.  The posted speed limit in that location is 60 miles per 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
hour.  Santimarino observed Jenney driving a black SUV in the left lane of Route 
21 in moderate to heavy traffic.  Santimarino determined that Jenney was 
traveling faster than the posted speed limit, initiated a traffic stop, and issued 
Jenney a citation for traveling 79 miles per hour in a 60-mile-per-hour zone in 
violation of R.C. 4511.21.1   
{¶ 4} The case proceeded to trial in the Barberton Municipal Court. 
{¶ 5} At trial, Santimarino testified that he had been employed as a 
patrolman with the Copley Police Department for 13 years.  He testified that he 
was certified by OPOTA and had been working in traffic enforcement since 1995.  
Santimarino testified that as part of his OPOTA training, he was trained to 
visually estimate the speed of a vehicle.  In order to be certified by OPOTA, 
Santimarino was required to show that he could visually estimate a vehicle’s 
speed to within three to four miles per hour of the vehicle’s actual speed, which 
he did.  Further, Santimarino testified that since becoming a police officer in 
1995, he had performed hundreds of visual estimations.  Santimarino testified that 
based on his training and experience, he had estimated that Jenney’s vehicle was 
traveling 70 miles per hour on July 3, 2008. 
{¶ 6} Santimarino also testified that in addition to his training and 
experience in visually estimating vehicle speed, he was trained and certified to 
use the Python brand Doppler radar unit that he was using on July 3, 2008.  
Santimarino testified on direct examination that after he visually estimated the 
speed of Jenney’s vehicle, he observed that the radar unit indicated that Jenney’s 
                                                 
1 In issuing the citation, Santimarino inadvertently failed to check any of the boxes specifying 
under which subsection Jenney was charged, but the trial court permitted the state to amend the 
citation to allege that Jenney violated both R.C. 4511.21(A) (operating a motor vehicle at a greater 
speed than is reasonable and proper under the circumstances) and 4511.21(D)(6) (operating a 
motor vehicle at a speed exceeding the posted speed limit).  On appeal, the Ninth District Court of 
Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of the city’s motion to amend the citation.  Barberton v. 
Jenney, Summit App. No. 24423, 2009-Ohio-1985, 2009 WL 1139347, ¶ 4.  We declined to 
review Jenney’s proposition relating to the amendment.  Barberton v. Jenney, 123 Ohio St.3d 
1406, 2009-Ohio-5031, 914 N.E.2d 204. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
vehicle was traveling at 82 miles per hour.2  Santimarino could not produce a 
copy of his radar-training certification when defense counsel requested he do so 
on the day of trial. 
{¶ 7} Santimarino also testified that Jenney was traveling at an 
unreasonable speed for the conditions, given the other traffic in close proximity to 
his vehicle. 
{¶ 8} In light of both his visual estimation and the radar reading, 
Santimarino initiated a traffic stop and issued Jenney a citation for traveling 79 
miles per hour in a 60 mile per hour zone in violation of R.C. 4511.21.  
Santimarino testified that he reduced the rate of speed to 79 miles per hour to 
“give [Jenney] a break on the personal appearance in court,” which is required for 
speeds 20 miles per hour or more over the speed limit. 
{¶ 9} At the conclusion of the city’s case, Jenney moved for an acquittal 
pursuant to Crim.R. 29, arguing that the city had failed to meet its burden of 
proof.  The trial court overruled Jenney’s motion.  Jenney then testified that 
before he was pulled over, he had been traveling in the right lane of traffic, not the 
left lane as Santimarino had testified, and that he had been traveling at the speed 
limit, 60 miles per hour. 
{¶ 10} The trial judge found Jenney guilty of traveling over the posted 
speed limit.  Based on Santimarino’s visual estimation, which the trial court found 
to be his “strongest” testimony, the court amended the citation to state that Jenney 
was traveling 70 miles per hour in a 60-mile-per-hour zone and imposed a $50 
fine plus court costs. 
{¶ 11} Jenney appealed his conviction to the Ninth District Court of 
Appeals, arguing that the trial court had erroneously permitted the city to amend 
the traffic citation and that his conviction was not supported by sufficient 
                                                 
2 Santimarino testified on cross-examination that the radar unit indicated that Jenney’s vehicle was 
traveling at 83 miles per hour.  This difference is immaterial to our analysis. 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.  Jenney argued that 
the radar results were not admissible because the city had failed to establish a 
proper foundation for admission.  Jenney maintained that without the radar 
results, the city had failed to present sufficient evidence of his speed and his 
conviction could not stand.  The court of appeals held that because Santimarino 
could not produce his certificate to operate the radar unit on the day of trial, the 
state had not proved that he was qualified to operate the radar unit and the trial 
court had erred in permitting him to testify regarding the radar results.3  Id., ¶ 8.  
However, the Ninth District held that the admission of Santimarino’s testimony 
regarding the radar results was harmless error because his visual estimation of the 
vehicle’s speed was sufficient to support Jenney’s conviction.  Id., ¶ 9. 
{¶ 12} We accepted review of Jenney’s discretionary appeal to determine 
whether a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, by itself, 
is sufficient to support a conviction for violation of R.C. 4511.21(D).  Barberton 
v. Jenney, 123 Ohio St.3d 1406, 2009-Ohio-5031, 914 N.E.2d 204.  We hold that 
a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient 
evidence to support a conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D) 
without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer is trained, is 
certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or a similar organization 
that develops and implements training programs to meet the needs of law-
enforcement professionals and the communities they serve, and is experienced in 
visually estimating vehicle speed. 
Analysis 
{¶ 13} The trial court found appellant guilty of “traveling over the speed 
limit.”  Pursuant to R.C. 4511.21(D)(6), “[n]o person shall operate a motor 
                                                 
3 The city did not appeal the Ninth District’s decision that the radar results were inadmissible.  
Because the issue is not before us, we do not consider whether Santimarino’s testimony regarding 
his training and certification in operating the radar unit was sufficient evidence to prove that he 
was qualified to operate the unit. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
vehicle * * * upon a street or highway * * * [a]t a speed exceeding the posted 
speed limit * * *.”  Jenney does not dispute that he was operating a motor vehicle 
on a street or highway and that the posted speed limit was 60 miles per hour.  The 
only element of the offense that Jenney challenges as not being supported by 
sufficient evidence is the speed at which he was driving. 
{¶ 14} “ ‘ “[S]ufficiency” is a term of art meaning that legal standard 
which is applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the 
evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.’ ”  
State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting 
Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed.1990) 1433.  “In essence, sufficiency is a test of 
adequacy.  Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a 
question of law.”  Id.  In reviewing a challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence, 
“ ‘the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most 
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the 
essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”  State v. 
Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 113, quoting State 
v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the 
syllabus. 
{¶ 15} “Visual observation has long been held a valid means of 
determining the speed of a moving vehicle as long as the witness has a reliable 
opportunity to view the vehicle.”  State v. Harkins (Aug. 5, 1987), 4th Dist. No. 
431, 1987 WL 15492, at *3.  A majority of the appellate districts that have 
considered the issue have held that an officer’s testimony that in his opinion, a 
defendant was traveling in excess of the speed limit is sufficient to sustain a 
conviction for speeding.  Kirtland Hills v. Logan (11th Dist.1984), 21 Ohio 
App.3d 67, 69, 21 OBR 71, 486 N.E.2d 231; State v. Dawson, 5th Dist. No. 03-
COA-061, 2004-Ohio-2324, ¶ 21-23; Cincinnati v. Dowling (1st Dist.1987), 36 
Ohio App.3d 198, 199-200, 521 N.E.2d 1140; State v. Gellenbeck, 12th Dist. No. 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
CA2008-08-030, 2009-Ohio-1731, 2009 WL 975746, ¶ 19-20; Columbus v. Bravi 
(Mar. 5, 1991), 10th Dist. No. 90AP-1135, 1991 WL 33095; State v. Wilson (Nov. 
20, 1996), 9th Dist. No. 95CA006285, 1996 WL 668993, at *1.  In so holding, 
many of these courts have considered the testifying officer’s training and 
experience visually estimating vehicle speed.  Dawson at ¶ 21-23 (noting that the 
trooper had received training at the Ohio Highway Patrol Academy on how to 
accurately estimate the speed of moving vehicles, had passed the test at the 
academy, and had been a trooper for four and a half years); Dowling at 199-200 
(noting that the officer was trained in visually estimating vehicle speed and had 
29 years of experience); Gellenbeck at ¶ 19-20 (noting that the trooper testified 
regarding his training to accurately visually estimate vehicle speed); Kirtland 
Hills at 69 (noting that the officer’s testimony regarding his visual estimation was 
based on his knowledge and expertise). 
{¶ 16} Jenney relies on decisions by the Second, Third, and Eighth 
Districts to support his argument that an officer’s visual estimation of a vehicle’s 
speed, alone, is insufficient to support a conviction pursuant to R.C. 4511.21(D).  
See Middleburg Hts. v. Campbell, 8th Dist. No. 87593, 2006-Ohio-6582, 2006 
WL 3630780; State v. Saphire (Dec. 8, 2000), 2d Dist. No. 2000 CA 39, 2000 WL 
1803852; State v. Meyers (Dec. 29, 2000), 2d Dist. No. 2000 CA 49, 2000 WL 
1879104; State v. Westerbeck (June 19, 1987), 3d Dist. No. 17-86-18, 1987 WL 
13063. 
{¶ 17} The Eighth District held that an officer’s visual estimation of a 
vehicle’s speed, alone, is insufficient to support a conviction for speeding, stating 
that “the mere educated guess of the arresting officer as to the speed of a vehicle 
is insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof 
beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction.”  Campbell, 2006-Ohio-6582, ¶ 15. 
{¶ 18} Although Jenney’s reliance on the Eighth District’s decision in 
Campbell is sound, his reliance on the Second District’s decisions in Saphire and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Meyers and the Third District’s decision in Westerbeck is misplaced.  After its 
decisions in Saphire and Meyers, the Second District held that testimony 
regarding an officer’s visual estimation of speed, alone, may be sufficient to 
support a conviction for speeding upon an adequate showing of the officer’s 
training and ability to accurately visually estimate the speed of vehicles.  State v. 
Konya, 2d Dist. No. 21434, 2006-Ohio-6312, 2006 WL 3462119, ¶ 7-8, 14.  In 
Konya, the court held that based on the trooper’s 12 years of experience in law 
enforcement and extensive training in visually estimating the speed of vehicles, 
along with the fact that he had had an unobstructed view of the vehicle in question 
for more than a mile, his testimony was sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the 
defendant’s speed.  Id.  Similarly, the Third District recently explained that its 
decision in Westerbeck is limited to cases in which the officer’s testimony is “too 
vague and indefinite for a finding of guilt,” stating that courts that have 
interpreted Westerbeck as holding that visual-estimation testimony is insufficient 
as a matter of law have misconstrued its holding.  State v. Harris, 3d Dist. No. 9-
09-03, 2009-Ohio-2616, 2009 WL 1579250, ¶ 13, fn. 3. 
{¶ 19} The Eighth District stands alone in holding that an officer’s visual 
estimation of the speed of a vehicle is insufficient to support a finding of guilt, 
and we agree with the courts that have found the opposite.  Rational triers of fact 
could find a police officer’s testimony regarding his unaided visual estimation of 
a vehicle’s speed, when supported by evidence that the officer is trained, certified 
by OPOTA or a similar organization, and experienced in making such 
estimations, sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s 
speed.  Independent verification of the vehicle’s speed is not necessary to support 
a conviction for speeding. 
{¶ 20} The officer’s credibility remains an issue for the trier of the facts.  
State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 120, 
quoting State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 39 O.O.2d 366, 227 N.E.2d 
January Term, 2010 
9 
 
212, paragraph one of the syllabus.  “Because the trier of fact sees and hears the 
witnesses and is particularly competent to decide ‘whether, and to what extent, to 
credit the testimony of particular witnesses,’ we must afford substantial deference 
to its determinations of credibility.”  Konya, 2006-Ohio-6312, ¶ 6, quoting State 
v. Lawson (Aug. 22, 1997), 2d Dist. No. 16288. 
{¶ 21} At the time of the traffic stop, Santimarino had been employed as a 
patrolman with the Copley Police Department for 13 years.  He is trained to 
visually estimate vehicle speed to within three to four miles per hour of the 
vehicle’s actual speed, he is certified by OPOTA in visually estimating vehicle 
speed, and he has performed hundreds of visual estimations since becoming a 
police officer in 1995.  Santimarino testified that based on his training and 
experience, he visually estimated that Jenney was traveling 70 miles per hour at 
the time of the traffic stop.  Santimarino’s testimony was sufficient to support 
Jenney’s conviction for traveling at a speed above the posted limit in violation of 
R.C. 4511.21(D).  Further, the trial court found Santimarino’s testimony credible, 
and based its finding of guilt on the officer’s visual estimation, noting that his 
testimony on the estimated speed was his “strongest” testimony. 
{¶ 22} Given 
Santimarino’s 
training, 
OPOTA 
certification, 
and 
experience in visually estimating vehicle speed, his estimation that Jenney was 
traveling 70 miles per hour was sufficient to support Jenney’s conviction for 
driving over the posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour in violation of R.C. 
4511.21(D). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 23} A police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is 
sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 
4511.21(D) without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer 
is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or a similar 
organization that develops and implements training programs to meet the needs of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
law-enforcement professionals and the communities they serve, and is 
experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed.  Given Santimarino’s training, 
OPOTA certification, and experience in visually estimating vehicle speed, his 
estimation that Jenney was traveling at 70 miles per hour was sufficient to support 
a conviction for driving over the posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour in 
violation of R.C. 4511.21(D).  We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals and uphold Jenney’s conviction and fine. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 24} I respectfully dissent. 
{¶ 25} While a police officer who is trained, certified by the Ohio Peace 
Officer Training Academy, and experienced in estimating a vehicle’s speed may, 
as any other expert witness, offer an opinion of the speed of a moving vehicle 
during testimony in a court proceeding, I do not agree that such testimony per se 
is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding.  Like any other 
witness, a police officer’s credibility is to be determined by the jury or other fact-
finder.  State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 
120, quoting State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 39 O.O2d 366, 227 
N.E.2d 212, paragraph one of the syllabus (“ ‘[T]he weight to be given the 
evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of the facts’ 
”).  In fact, jury instructions given regularly by trial judges advise that a jury is 
privileged to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness.  See, e.g., 
State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248, 2002-Ohio-7247, 781 N.E.2d 980, ¶ 120 
January Term, 2010 
11 
 
(citing jury instruction stating that jurors may believe or disbelieve all or any part 
of the testimony of any witness). 
{¶ 26} Thus, I would assert that a broad standard as postulated by the 
majority that a trained, certified, and experienced officer’s estimate of speed is 
sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding eclipses the role of the 
fact-finder to reject such testimony and thus such testimony, if found not to be 
credible, could, in some instances, be insufficient to support a conviction. 
__________________ 
Michelle Banbury, City of Barberton Law Department Assistant 
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
John Kim, for appellant. 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Solicitor General, 
and Emily S. Schlesinger, Deputy Solicitor, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, 
Ohio Attorney General. 
__________________