Sometimes, callers +state that the cop can’t prove the speeding charges against them. This understandable in a world where we think of proof as written or objectively existing evidence and words as unreliable “hearsay.”

However, the legal definition of hearsay is specific, complicated, and does not mean that anything spoken is unreliable or without value. The opposite is true. Words, in the form of sworn testimony, are evidence and therefore can prove a speeding or any other charge.

Think of what happens in a court. A police office can, and will, take the stand and testify to the facts and circumstance of the ticket. If the judge, or jury, believe the testimony, those words are evidence that prove the charge sufficient to support a conviction.

A couple cases:

The Appellate Division, second highest court in New York, found that a police officer’s testimony that he was trained in speed estimation and observed the defendant speeding and confirmed with radar was enough to convict the driver. Hall v. Swartz, 877 N.Y.S.2d 410 (2nd Dept 2009) Several cases have since cited approvingly this case for this idea.

The Appellate Division that a speeding conviction was supported by substantial evidence. The evidence in that case was the police officer’s testimony that included his visual estimate of the speed that was confirmed by the police officer’s own speedometer. Namer v. Martinez. 809 N.Y.S.2d 457 (2nd Dept 2006) Using the speed of their car to determine the speed of another is called “pacing.”