The evidence indeed was "black and white". But that wasn't the issue that the court ruled on. The law they were considering had wording of "reasonable and prudent". The reason they were considering it is because a motorist had objected to a speeding ticket on the grounds that the motorist thought his speed WAS reasonable and prudent (85mph, middle of nowhere, perfect driving conditions, only two cars on the road including motorist and cop, send driver, BRAND NEW SPORTS CAR . . . yeah, it WAS indeed reasonable and prudent). The R&P law was declared unconsbreastutional as it was vague enough to cause violations of due process clauses in the Montana Consbreastution. That is, a motorist would have no fair notice that the speed he-she was driving might be in violation of the law. In effect, the R&P law was retroactive in the sense that you wouldn't know you had violated it until after you were ticketed, because the law didn't exist (as far as "speeding" is concerned) until some cop made the decision that it did exist.
Ironically, the motorist won (as he should have, as his driving was reasonable and prudent), but everybody LOST in this case. With numerical speed limits, Montana is not nearly as safe now as it used to be. -Dave
