Speed limits enforced by aircraft?

[jakeroot]

Of course, in most states, a warrantless arrest requires a crime to be committed in the presence of the LEO.  Since the ground LEO is merely acting on the (inadmissible in court, see your state's rule of evidence version of 602) say-so of someone else, he is guilty of kidnapping or at least unlawful detainer.

I don't see it. The bear in the air can testify that a certain car was traveling at X speed "in the presence of the LEO", and that car was pulled over by the cop on the ground (assuming the pilot didn't fly away before the pullover). The cop on the ground can identify in court the driver of the car spotted from the air. Even if neither alone can prove the offense, they can do so together. Of course, getting both of them in court at the right time can be a logistical challenge, but not a legal one.

I'm not sure how an officer can write a ticket for something he didn't see you do. He'd be writing a ticket with the assumption that the pilot is in fact not bullshitting him. Not to mention, even if the evidence did exist later in court, unless the officer that pulled you over can prove he was able to access the evidence before the citation, the citation holds little ground.

(FWIW, I'm not a lawyer, and I have zero court experience -- this is just how I would assume hope the court would approach things)

[bzakharin]

I think the NJ signs say (said?) "Speed *controlled* by helicopter". Which is really odd because the helicopters are not controlling anything.

[PHLBOS]

I think the NJ signs say (said?) "Speed *controlled* by helicopter". Which is really odd because the helicopters are not controlling anything.

The actual word might be Speed patrolled by helicopter.

[oscar]

Of course, in most states, a warrantless arrest requires a crime to be committed in the presence of the LEO.  Since the ground LEO is merely acting on the (inadmissible in court, see your state's rule of evidence version of 602) say-so of someone else, he is guilty of kidnapping or at least unlawful detainer.

I don't see it. The bear in the air can testify that a certain car was traveling at X speed "in the presence of the LEO", and that car was pulled over by the cop on the ground (assuming the pilot didn't fly away before the pullover). The cop on the ground can identify in court the driver of the car spotted from the air. Even if neither alone can prove the offense, they can do so together. Of course, getting both of them in court at the right time can be a logistical challenge, but not a legal one.

I'm not sure how an officer can write a ticket for something he didn't see you do. He'd be writing a ticket with the assumption that the pilot is in fact not bullshitting him. Not to mention, even if the evidence did exist later in court, unless the officer that pulled you over can prove he was able to access the evidence before the citation, the citation holds little ground.

(FWIW, I'm not a lawyer, and I have zero court experience -- this is just how I would assume hope the court would approach things)

Sounds like arrests made for drug possession, where the arresting officer isn't 100% sure that suspicious-looking white powder she found is an illegal drug, so long as the suspicion was reasonable enough (or there are other grounds) to support the search and resulting arrest. That she doesn't personally know all the facts needed to secure a conviction doesn't invalidate the arrest, though a lab tech may need to confirm (and testify in court) the powder was indeed something illegal.

FWIW, I am a (retired) lawyer, but my specialty was non-criminal, and I learned only enough criminal law to pass the bar exam plus skimming Supreme Court decisions on SCOTUSblog.

[bzakharin]

I think the NJ signs say (said?) "Speed *controlled* by helicopter". Which is really odd because the helicopters are not controlling anything.

The actual word might be Speed patrolled by helicopter.

The signs on the ACE definitely say "Speed radar controlled". I may be conflating the two

[hbelkins]

I've seen a lot of "speed radar controlled" signs. Obviously they mean "enforced" or some other synonym.

[relaxok]

I drive by one of these signs all the time, on CA-37 going east from Novato toward the Napa area.

Part of it directly crosses the approach path of the nearby airport (perpendicular to it), so I would think that would make it NOT good for this purpose, rather than appropriate.

[SP Cook]

Sounds like arrests made for drug possession,

Not exactly.  Government agents only have the power to arrest for crimes committed in their presence.  Otherwise the 4th Adm applies.   A so-called "ticket" is actually a combination criminal complaint and a promise by the victim to appear.    In a classic random tax, the traffic cop scum is SWEARING that a crime was committed in his presence, and thus avoiding the application of the 4th Adm .  And since he has the power to arrest for crime committed in his presence, you have to sign the extortion ticket or go to jail.   In the airplane variant, the cop has no personal knowledge of any crime.  He has no power to stop your car, and no power to arrest you.   He has just been told of something over the radio.    He has no power to arrest for crimes not committed in his presence.  To continue the drug analogy, it is as if he got a phone call and was told that somebody has some drugs and arrested the individual based on that say so. 

It does not work that way.  The 4th Amendment requires a cop to appear before a judicial officer and obtain a warrant for crimes not committed in his presence. 

[pumpkineater2]

 So it sounds like how common it is varies from state to state.(not surprising)

Apparently Arizona also enforces speed with aircraft,(maybe all 50 states do it?) though I have never seen any signs saying so. Of course, there are many places in this state I haven't been.

It still seems silly to me to make all the effort and spend the money to put an aircraft in the air just because there is a possibility they would catch speeders, but hey, I'm not the expert.

[thenetwork]

The only real advantage an air patrol has in catching speeders is that they use a stopwatch to time speeders between (usually) quarter-mile stripes on the ground.  To this extent, radar detectors are useless for drivers, because no laser or radar is used and the cops just have to wait "around the bend" for said driver.  Even if he slows down in sight of the cops, the speed has already been determined.

[Roadrunner75]

Many will recall the Garden State Parkway in NJ used to have signs that stated "Speed monitored by Helicopter" or something to that effect.  Those signs I believe are long-gone - I tried doing a search for one online and came up empty.  You probably have to go back many years for any sort of speed monitoring via aircraft.

A couple of days ago I noticed that the "End" sign for the helicopter enforcement zone is still standing along the GSP - hard to notice with the End Work Area sign immediately in front of it:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.187817,-74.099581&spn=0.000002,0.001635&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.187907,-74.099833&panoid=RrTy8bx_1wXGUHWbW4e_4w&cbp=12,24.79,,0,10.55

[bzakharin]

A couple of days ago I noticed that the "End" sign for the helicopter enforcement zone is still standing along the GSP - hard to notice with the End Work Area sign immediately in front of it:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.187817,-74.099581&spn=0.000002,0.001635&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.187907,-74.099833&panoid=RrTy8bx_1wXGUHWbW4e_4w&cbp=12,24.79,,0,10.55

Why would they advertise an end to this area? Is there some law requiring them to?

[DandyDan]

I remember seeing signs about how speed is enforced by aircraft in Kansas years ago and thought it would be easy for them to do there, and anywhere else in the midwest where the roads follow the section lines.  I was told by someone in my old delivery job all the "bear in the air" does is measure the time it takes to drive 1 mile and if it is under a certain amount of time, it's speeding.  Not sure this is, or was, how it is really done, but it seemed reasonable to me.

[jeffandnicole]

They probably didn't need to measure for a minute. Measure between two fixed points (lines on the road, etc) for a few seconds; 10 or 15 at the most, and you'll get the vehicle's speed.

[thenetwork]

Usually the air enforcement zones that I have seen have the perpendicular road stripes at 1/4 mile intervals.

[Duke87]

How would you know if an aircraft was involved and not simply a second cop on the ground? I got a ticket in Illinois once for a speed that the cop said I was doing "about 3 miles back". He definitely pulled out from the median right before turning his lights on so he didn't follow me that distance. I'd never even considered I might have been nabbed by a plane. I assumed a second cop was running radar from an overpass or something.

As for enforcement by air, it isn't terribly cost effective from a revenue perspective (especially not with the price of fuel these days... and the proliferation of handheld radar). But damned if it isn't incredibly intimidating, so if people know the cops are doing it they're certainly going to be scared into compliance.

It's bullshit that they won't pull over/ticket another cop, though. I know this is standard practice but that doesn't make it less corrupt.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I've never seen or heard of Minnesota using air patrols, or any signs for it. I'm sure in a lot of places even if it's not actively being undertaken it's just a paper tiger deterrent to speeders to make them have to consider air monitoring in addition to cops on the ground.

[democraticnole]

My Dad got tagged by aircraft here in Florida in 1990. i also knew of someone who got nailed on I-4 by aircraft on Christmas day around 2005-2006.

I personally have never seen aircraft patrolling for speed. My speculation is that 20-30 years ago when gas was much cheaper, state police more regularly used aircraft to catch speeders. As the costs of fuel drastically went up, many police agencies cut back on the use of aircraft for speed control due to expense.