I really don't get all yall's point here. You want to live in a society that protects its citizens but don't want the police to have much enforcement. On the one hand, "society is too soft on criminals", while, on the other, "the police have too much power". Can't have it both ways. How come it's not ok for a cop to guesstimate that someone is driving over the speed limit, but it's (by implication) ok for that person to break traffic laws? I, personally, don't like it if I'm driving on the interstate, maybe a little over the limit, and some guy in a corvette zooms me at ninety plus, just because he can. If a passing car makes me look like I'm parked, I say, yeah, he OUGHTA get a ticket. Maybe not for doing 97.346 in a 55 mph zone, but at least for SOMETHING. And a cop doesn't need absolute scientific, hard copy proof to make his case. He sees you climbing out the window of someone else's house, he doesn't have to document everything with videotape in order to make an arrest. Just reasonable cause, based upon his training and experience.
Back to the article in question, where did it describe the circumstances of the man's ticketing? It just said the courts upheld the cop's estimate. I guarantee, you pass the high school here at thirty-five when the school zone lights are flashing, the cops won't be particular about exactly how fast you did it when they write you up. Neither will the judge.
