Washington Speeding Ticket

[Gravity]

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: WA

I received my discovery materials, posted below. My actual speed was less than 65. I was on a motorcycle traveling on the right side of the left lane. I was being passed by a van in the middle lane. There were 3 vehicles in front of me at a distance of approximately 400-500 feet.

I don't see anything that can help me. The officer says that he clocked me at a range of 430 feet, which means there were 3 vehicles between him and me. Also, I was being passed by a van less than 3 feet to my right, but at a 430 feet range, the beam probably isn't big enough to claim a scope error, unless you combine the obstruction of the cars ahead with the rocking that the wind from their passing would cause. The LIDAR's beam would be approximately 18" while my front fairing is 25".

This is frustrating....I wasn't speeding!

[adam_]

Any reason not to put this in the thread you already have for this same citation?

[Gravity]

Any reason not to put this in the thread you already have for this same citation?

Yeah, figured it'd be easier for folks to have a thread that starts out with the useful stuff like the discovery materials instead of a question about how well a lidar gun can pick out a motorcycle.

[BrendanjKeegan]

You know, I actually got a kick out of this when I read the memo. The State Patrol seems to get lazier and lazier.

Here's what you're missing or failed to put up:
In the memo, the authors state that there is a certification entitled "Lidar Certifications." Try and get a hold of that document and post it up. I have a feeling that something will be different and unsatisfactory with that.

Lastly, no one can read the affidavit as it is too small. Try and post it a little bigger.

Brendan

[adam_]

It seems this memo is becoming popular in WA.

How does one "get past" this? Is it necessary to provide a "proof of a request on a separate pleading" to get the actual calibration records???

A

[Gravity]

Here's what you're missing or failed to put up:
In the memo, the authors state that there is a certification entitled "Lidar Certifications." Try and get a hold of that document and post it up. I have a feeling that something will be different and unsatisfactory with that.

Lastly, no one can read the affidavit as it is too small. Try and post it a little bigger.
Brendan

OK, I resized the affidavit--was trying to keep things reasonable. I have the certificate, but it is four pages long and the board allows only 4 images per post. Again, trying to be good. Below are the four pages of certification.

Barring any technical errors, I'll have to fall back on arguing SMD usage errors, which I know is a huge uphill battle. They mention scope calibration at 100ft, but no mention is made of what the +/- of the scope is at a given range.

[Gravity]

If the scope is say, +/- 1 degree, that error correlates to +/- 7.5' at a range of 430'. (I used the calculator here: http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calsect.htm) Given the proximity of another vehicle passing me less than 3' to my right...you see where I'm going here. Problem is, there's no scope tolerance given in the certification, just that it was calibrated.

[RandomWA]

The beam is 3 ft by 3 ft wide at 1,000 ft (your have ProLaser III), so at 430 ft it would be less than 1.5 ft by 1.5 ft. Manufacturer-stated precision is +- 1mph.

Why not subpoena an SMD expert and the trooper? If one of them doesn't appear, case would be dismissed.

If the scope is say, +/- 1 degree, that error correlates to +/- 7.5' at a range of 430'. (I used the calculator here: http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calsect.htm) Given the proximity of another vehicle passing me less than 3' to my right...you see where I'm going here. Problem is, there's no scope tolerance given in the certification, just that it was calibrated.

[Gravity]

I'd rather not rely on a subpoena no-show to win my case. It'd be nice to know the tolerance of the aiming reticle ahead of time, but that information isn't provided. I've searched for pro-laser III manuals, but to no avail. I could always wait until trial date and ask the officer. If he doesn't know, than he's not properly trained. If he does know and the tolerance is low enough to be a non-issue, then I'm wasting my time.

[blewis]

For what it's worth, I also posted this argument on another thread (which you're certainly welcome to read in its entirety), but it relates to SMD certifications which are almost identical to yours (also from Nicholson and Hillock):

I have also noted one more item, if the above motions fail. According to BELLEVUE v. MOCIULSKI, 51 Wn. App. 855, 756 P.2d 1320 (1987):

Before the machine is deemed reliable, the witness testing the machines or monitoring the testing must first show his/her qualifications to make and/or evaluate the tests. The witness must first qualify as an expert via knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. ER 702. After the witness has qualified as an expert, he/she must show that the machines passed the requisite tests and checks. Only then can the speed measuring devices be deemed reliable.

According to Mociulski, the "expert witness" MUST be the one who performs or supervises the testing. However, in the radar certification you have, two different SMD experts -- Steen Nicholson and Anthony Hillock -- both present their qualifications, showing their training and experience. Both seem to be quite qualified.

However, BOTH certificates then state: "On the date indicated in Exhibit "A" which follows, each SMD was tested under the direction of a certified SMD expert". That means that your device was NOT NECESSARILY TESTED (or supervised) BY THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THE AFFIDAVIT!

Therefore, the person who did the testing was NOT the person who signed the form as REQUIRED in Molciulski and ER 602 (no personal knowledge).

There is no way to tell exactly WHO did the testing. "[W]as tested under the direction of a certified SMD expert" is NOT NECESSARILY the person who "signed" the certificate. In fact, since both "SMD experts" use the words "I" and "me" when discussing their qualifications, why would they refer to a "certified SMD expert" when discussing the actual testing.

If you read that entire thread, you'll see that the poster DID NOT cite the Molciulski case in court, as I suggested, and lost. I can't tell you how critical it is to have an "authority" to cite in order to bolster your argument.

Oh, Brendan, remember -- to make the images larger hold down <CTRL> and press "+".

Barry