Officer Didn't Sign the Affidavit, Didn't Have Time to Radar Me

[TarekZ]

Hey guys,

I'm working with a ticket here in Washington State and I've got a couple of questions that I hope someone can help me out with.

First, the officer's affidavit that the Court sent me isn't it signed. It's got his badge number, printed name, date signed, etc. but in the spot where it says "Officers Signature" it's blank. This seems like a pretty big deal to me, but I'm not 100% sure I can use this to my advantage, especially since he made note that he's entering his authorized user ID and password to authenticate the affidavit. At the end of his declaration it says (RCW 9A.72.085), so I looked up the law and here it is: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.085

I'm still not sure what to make of this even after having read the law. Any advice on this first part?

This second part is a little complicated. The officer claims in the affidavit that I was the only moving vehicle in the radar's beam (he was traveling in the opposite direction that I was on a two-lane road). My ticket is for going 46 MPH in a 30 MPH speed zone. Here's the problem: there were other cars in front of me traveling about the same speed as me. I'm assuming the cop was traveling somewhere around 30 MPH (the speed limit).

With this being said, if I was indeed going 46mph and he was traveling in the direction opposite of me at a slower speed, could he have had enough time to radar JUST ME before passing me? Because eventually he had to pull a U-turn in order to pull me over. If he was radar-ing in the opposite moving mode and I was traveling 46 MPH and he was traveling somewhere around 30 MPH, it doesn't seem like he'd be able to get a reading without getting either one of the cars in front of me or one of the cars behind me since I would have passed him (if I was going at 46mph). Does this make sense? I seriously have no idea how he could have had enough time to get me on radar unless he was emitting it from super far away -- in which case he would have had to have gotten someone else in the reading as well.

Hope this wasn't too chaotically written! Any advice on these two matters would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[colemac65]

GR 30 allows for an electronic issuance and filing.....authenticating his user id and password suffices....

do you have the affidavit, post it in the thread, and i assure you we can give some spot on advice to assist in a dismissal

[BrendanjKeegan]

He was in moving mode... alright, does it say anything in the affidavit about him being in "opposite direction moving mode?" Or how about anything that says when his speedometer was calibrated? Does it even say it was calibrated? And what about him saying if the radars speed window was consistent with the speedometer?

I wouldn't spend time fighting the ticket on the basis that "it could have been someone else?" It never works. The judge will normally say, "Well, I guess it's possible, but not probable."

Go with this: Moving mode is really easy to win with.

Post the affidavit and we'll help you out even more.

Brendan

[TarekZ]

Ok, well I'm just really surprised that he doesn't have to sign the actual affidavit. Interesting. I'll work on getting it posted, I don't have regular access to a scanner but when I get the soonest opportunity I will get it up.

Brendan, the affidavit does say that he was in the "opposite moving mode". It never mentions anything about his speedometer, nor anything about the radar speed being consistent with the speedometer. On a personal note, what is the significance of this? Does IRLJ mandate the officer's speedometer be calibrated? Why would it need to be, and how would it be consistent with the speedometer? I just don't understand...

By the way, I received more discovery materials today, and it's raised more questions for me. If I may present them and get some feedback from you guys, I'd sure appreciate it.

First, the affidavit that I have is entitled "Radar Affidavit". It is fairly light on the days' events and more heavy on the radar section. In the cover letter that the Court sent me, it says that they sent a Radar Affidavit as well as a Mailing affidavit, but all I have is the radar affidavit. I'm not even sure they sent me the real affidavit! Can someone direct me to the IRLJ rule where it says what the affidavit must contain, so maybe I can find something he left out, or to see if this is even the real affidavit?

Second, the cover letter of the affidavit says that traffic was "light". But the main affidavit goes on to say that traffic was "medium". Can I do something with this contradiction?

Thirdly, the notice of infraction says that my race is "W" (I'm assuming means white) and that my weight is 150. Neither of these are true. Anything I can do with this?

Last, and I think this is one of the most important ones, in my original discovery request I asked for the court to send me all calibration and certification materials related to the speed measuring device relevant to my case. They sent me a three-year-old inspection certificate that certified antennae, tuning forks, and a radar gun that have different serial numbers and brands than what the officer says he used in his affidavit. In his affidavit he said that his radar gun was certified through November 2010 by a specific company. At this point, I'm planning on specifically requesting the certification by the specific company for the specific radar gun and tuning forks using the serial numbers provided in the affidavit. However, I'll wait to do this until Monday based on what you guys think, because I think this is a pretty big discrepancy...

I really appreciate your guys' help!

[BrendanjKeegan]

It's really hard for us to "mark up" an affidavit that we can't see.

1.) If you're not sure it's the correct affidavit for your citation, then bring it up in court. But back your claim.

2.) Again, I can't see it; I can't comment.

3.) Not really...

4.) I wouldn't do any more discovery until we can see the documents that you have. I am not sure where you're planning on going with any of this. But what you have right now (assuming everything you have posted is true) will get the case dismissed.

The Infraction Rules for courts of Limited Jurisdiction do not mandate anything about speedometer or SMD calibrations, unless you specifically look at IRLJ 6.6.

The speedometer would need to be calibrated because that is how the SMD is calculating the defendant's (your vehicle's) speed. With an improperly calibrated speedometer, the SMD is going to obtain an inaccurate reading, swaying the judge's "pondering" to your side.

He probably hasn't even stated what patrol unit vehicle he was in.

All of these questions are really great questions, but we can't provide the insight that you are looking for without seeing the actual documents.

Brendan

[TarekZ]

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/a...Discovery3.jpg

This first link (above) shows the cover letter of the discovery the court sent. They mention a mailing affidavit (#1) and a radar affidavit (#3), but all I have is a radar affidavit, which I am linking to below. This is one point I'm wondering about, whether or not they sent me the "real" affidavit.

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/a...Discovery1.jpg

This second link (above) is the radar affidavit that they sent me. Note in the middle of the page it says "Traffic: Medium" (I'll come back to why that's important). Please note the second-to-last paragraph where he talks about the radar calibration and what not -- in particular, please note the serial numbers for all the equipment (you'll see why this is important in the following document).

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/a...Discovery2.jpg

Here's the biggy. The affidavit says that the speed equipment is certified through November of this year, but this radar inspection certificate is years old. And it certifies equipment that's completely different from what the officer specifies in the affidavit. Obviously this is important because the Court isn't producing up-to-date certification on the officer's equipment. That's why I'm wondering if I should request specific discovery based on the serial numbers from the officer's affidavit (I'm planning on doing this Monday based on what you guys say). Then we'll see if they really have the documents that the officer says exist. Or, the alternative is letting it go and bringing up the point of expired evidence in court... so that's where I'd like your guys' advice.

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/a...Discovery4.jpg

Last link (above). Not much going on this one, but see in the middle of the page where it says "Traffic: Light". This contradicts the affidavit, and I'm wondering if there's something I can do with it.

Thanks so much for your help!

[BrendanjKeegan]

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/a...Discovery3.jpg

This first link (above) shows the cover letter of the discovery the court sent. They mention a mailing affidavit (#1) and a radar affidavit (#3), but all I have is a radar affidavit, which I am linking to below. This is one point I'm wondering about, whether or not they sent me the "real" affidavit.

This is a cover letter. It's unimportant and not material to the case that the city has against you. However, you did receive it. Look at the document title.... it says "MAILING AFFIDAVIT." You're not missing anything.

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/a...Discovery2.jpg

Here's the biggy. The affidavit says that the speed equipment is certified through November of this year, but this radar inspection certificate is years old. And it certifies equipment that's completely different from what the officer specifies in the affidavit. Obviously this is important because the Court isn't producing up-to-date certification on the officer's equipment. That's why I'm wondering if I should request specific discovery based on the serial numbers from the officer's affidavit (I'm planning on doing this Monday based on what you guys say). Then we'll see if they really have the documents that the officer says exist. Or, the alternative is letting it go and bringing up the point of expired evidence in court... so that's where I'd like your guys' advice.

This Cert for Design and Construction is not the correct one for the radar SMD that the officer was using at the time of issuance. This "6.6 cert" is for a Kustom TROOPER with the Serial number KK23808. You're trying to find the Kustom FALCON with the serial number of FH04447.

Go to the court and check if FH04447 is on file with their SMD book. If not, you can move for dismissal as their is no expert testimony to testify to the accuracy of the device used.

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/a...Discovery4.jpg

Last link (above). Not much going on this one, but see in the middle of the page where it says "Traffic: Light". This contradicts the affidavit, and I'm wondering if there's something I can do with it.

Not a big problem. However, you can use it if you want. It can't hurt.

Here's a major point that I would start off right away in court:
"Your honor, the officer has failed to designate what number patrol car he was in at the time he achieved the radar reading on my vehicle. Therefore, it is impossible for him to prove that his speedometer was indeed calibrated. Because he was in moving mode, it is important that the speedometer of the officer's vehicle is calibrated and certified by a certified facility. I move to dismiss the case due to lack of foundation."

Does this make sense?

At this point you're pretty much guaranteed a win. As long as you can convey to the court that a huge piece of evidence is missing.

Brendan

[TarekZ]

Yes, that makes total sense. Thank you very much for all your help! My hearing is in just about a month, so I'll let you know how it goes when it happens. And if anyone else sees anything else that might help me, please feel free to post! I'll be checking back periodically