People v. Olsen, 22 N.Y.2d 230 (1968)
Expert opinion evidence from qualified police officers, without mechanical corroboration, can be sufficient to sustain a speeding conviction if the estimated speed significantly exceeds the speed limit.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a speeding conviction could be sustained solely on the testimony of two police officers estimating the defendant’s speed. The Herkimer County Court reversed the defendant’s conviction, arguing that the officers’ testimony, absent corroborating mechanical evidence, was insufficient. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that properly qualified expert opinion evidence from police officers is sufficient to sustain a speeding conviction, especially when the estimated speed substantially exceeds the speed limit, provided the trial court appropriately considers all the relevant facts and circumstances.
Facts
Two police officers independently observed the defendant’s vehicle traveling at an estimated speed of 50 to 55 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour zone. The officers testified to this effect in court. No mechanical device was used to gauge the vehicle’s speed.
Procedural History
The City Court of Little Falls convicted the defendant of violating section 1180 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (speeding). The Herkimer County Court reversed the City Court’s judgment, finding the evidence insufficient. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals by permission of an Associate Judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the opinion evidence of police officers, properly qualified to testify as experts, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding when there is no mechanical device corroborating their testimony.
Holding
Yes, because opinion evidence from properly qualified experts regarding the speed of a vehicle is admissible and can be sufficient to sustain a speeding conviction, especially when the estimated speed greatly exceeds the speed limit.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged prior cases requiring mechanical corroboration in addition to police testimony for speeding convictions. However, the Court emphasized the admissibility of opinion evidence regarding vehicle speed, provided the witness demonstrates experience in observing moving objects’ speed or provides a satisfactory basis for their opinion. Citing Senecal v. Drollette, the court reiterated that even a 12-year-old with experience observing speedometers could testify as to a vehicle’s speed.
The court reasoned that if such evidence is competent and admissible, there is no justification for holding it insufficient as a matter of law in every case. While acknowledging the inherent imprecision of speed estimations, the court found that an officer’s estimate of 50-55 mph in a 30-mph zone was sufficient to support a conviction. The court distinguished this from a situation where the estimated speed was only slightly above the limit, where mechanical corroboration might be necessary.
The court explicitly rejected any suggestion that police officer testimony should be inherently distrusted, stating that the presence of a mechanical device does not inherently prevent abuse of power. The court highlighted that the trial court’s decision to credit such testimony should be based on the totality of the circumstances, including the officer’s opportunity to observe the vehicle. The court concluded that the 20-25 mph variance above the speed limit in this case justified the finding of guilt.
The court emphasized that the decision to credit the officer’s testimony rests with the trial court, considering the facts and circumstances, including the officer’s opportunity to view the vehicle. The court reversed the County Court’s order and reinstated the City Court’s judgment.