Washington Speeding Ticket

[lurkertom]

WOOT! Found what I was looking for. http://tipmra.com/kgb/WEB/general/ProLaser%20III_om.pdf

On page 22 there is a description of the HUD aiming check:


A stop sign is just over 30" across, which means the beam could be 15" off from the aiming reticle when centered on a stop sign. Using the calc here, this translates into an aiming error of +/-.716 degrees. My speed was measured at 430', at which distance the reticle could be off by +/-5.37 feet!! Add to this the fact that the beam width at 430' is almost 12", and the beam could be as much as 6' from where the reticle is centered.

I know that I've indicated the worst-case scenario, but given the fact that I was on a motorcycle with a front fairing width of 26" and travelling approximately 36" from the faster vehicle, I have quite a bit of wiggle room.

So, I'll start off with challenging the hearsay of the certification and if that fails try the "He didn't target me, he targeted the other guy" defense. Only, I think the numbers back up that defense nicely.

I was just in Clark County District court for a speeding ticket a few weeks back. Somehow I did prevail. Make sure you check in on the 3rd floor with the clerk. They'll direct you to the smaller commissioner's room to the left side. The judge who heard my case seemed to be a reasonable fellow. He didn't want to hear a bunch of non-technical babble. There was no prosecutor or trooper present at my hearing. He was only interested in the trooper's sworn affidavit and in my testimony. Only the facts are important here. From the looks of it you may be able to inject enough doubt about the trooper's testimony to come out ahead.

[BrendanjKeegan]

I'm not sure if this matters or not but by him stating "the trooper" is trained, this may seem to be vague as well. Since it is him who signed the statement, which trooper is he referring to? Seems odd that he would state it in third person. Anyways, the first argument SHOULD work.

I suspect that since he states "Trooper Marcus Hoggart" in the second line, that The Trooper is Marcus Hoggart. There is no other Trooper stated in the affidavit. Because Trooper Marcus Hoggart signed the affidavit, I think a judge won't find any merit in this motion. Had their been a signature by someone else, then it would be hearsay.

I honestly don't think you'll need any other motions, as long as you present Barry's Mociulski argument in a clear and concise fashion.

I disagree...how can one use a piece of equipment properly if one doesn't know the limitations of the equipment?

You can disagree all you like. That's why our judicial system has a court of appeals. But I don't think that the judge at the hearing will agree with you.

I have GOT to stop subscribing to the posts on this thread...

[colemac65]

Good luck with teh TIPMRA defense......if you win based on that, you should go buy a lottery ticket!!!!!

Take the advice of B and B......their argument is spot on....

if you wanna know what i would do:

when the judge calls your name, walk up and say your honor, i have a preliminary motion to suppress the officers sworn affidavit:

I motion you to suprress because near the bottom of the document the trooper says that the smd was checked and tested, but he does not inform us through the testimony in his affidavit WHO, tested the unit. He doesnt even say, HE did it.

I have made this argument a couple times, works every time....!

[Gravity]

Update: Hearing is scheduled for tomorrow at 2:00pm. Below is what I typed up so I don't stumble on my own words. Any feedback is appreciated.

Request to suppress SMD evidence.
The Discovery materials that I requested and received included SMD certification affidavits from two different SMD experts, Steen Nicholson and Anthony Hillcock. Both state their qualifications as required. However, both state, “On the date indicated in Exhibit “A” which follows, each SMD was tested under the direction of a certified SMD expert.” Neither testifies to being the expert that did supervise or did perform the required testing.
According to Bellevue v. Mociulski, before the machine is deemed reliable, the witness testing the machines or monitoring the testing must first show his qualifications to make and/or evaluate the tests. After the witness has qualified as an expert, he must show that the machines passed the requisite tests and checks.
Both Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Hillocks’ testimony fail to establish either one of them as either the SMD tester or testing supervisor for SMD PL12777, the SMD used by Trooper Hoggart. Therefore, per Rule ER602, both lack personal knowledge of the SMD testing and may not testify.


Scope alignment check
Trooper Hoggart states that the unit was checked at the beginning and end of the Trooper’s shift. Three function checks were completed including distance, sight alignment, and self check. Again, the person performing these checks is not named, just that the checks were completed. The person doing the checks has not testified to being trained and qualified to perform the accuracy checks.
Page 23 of the Pro Laser III operator’s manual describes how to perform the HUD aiming reticle alignment check. At 100 or more feet, the unit is pointed at and swept across an object such as a stop sign. The unit passes the test if the proper range is displayed when the target is within the reticle area. A standard stop sign is 29.5 inches, which means the SMD aiming reticle could be off as much as 15 inches when centered on a stop sign. This translates into a scope alignment tolerance +/- of .716 degrees. Trooper Hoggart states that the speed reading was taken at a range of 430 feet. At 430 feet, tolerance of +/- .716 degrees equates to a possible beam location of +/-5.37 feet of where it is aimed.

This is relevant and significant due to the presence of another vehicle approximately 3 feet to my right which was passing me as I approached Trooper Hoggart’s position. My vehicle was a motorcycle with a 25" cross-section. Given the close proximity of another vehicle traveling faster than me and well within the scope alignment tolerance of the SMD aiming reticle, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that my vehicle’s speed was measured.

[Gravity]

Barry - thanks for the help! If you're ever in the Vancouver area you're welcome to stop by for a pint of my homebrew.

Motion to suppress - Granted
Motion to dismiss - Granted

The judge didn't even make me finish with the "Bellevue V Mociulski" case law. He said my motions were spot on and he doesn't understand why Washington doesn't edit their SMD affidavit to comply with the rules.

So I didn't need to do all that math, either.

[blewis]

Well, congratulations! Great job! I agree with the judge -- they SHOULD change those affidavits to comply with the Court Rules. But, hey, I'm not going to call them and tell them.

Thanks for letting us know,
Barry

[lbmofo]

blewis, I googled upon your other thread http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...p?t=282&page=1 because I was wondering how to "prosecute the appeal" once I file a notice of appeal (contested traffic infraction lost).

What is involved in "prosecute the appeal?" I haven't gone to the law library to read up on the "45" rules yet: http://www.skagitcounty.net/Common/A...&p=appeals.htm

Then I came across this thread about the SMD affidavit, will "Bellevue V Mociulski" work in appealing if I didn't bring this up in my contest hearing?

I'd appreciate yours and others' help.

[BrendanjKeegan]

Generally speaking, you can't bring up a new argument in appeals. That is, with certain exceptions. Maybe I'm missing some facts...

Edit: Barry's argument in his appeal looks as if he was appealing a decision based on an "error in judgment." This is different from a brand new argument that you would be introducing to the case.

[lbmofo]

Generally speaking, you can't bring up a new argument in appeals. That is, with certain exceptions. Maybe I'm missing some facts....

BrendanjKeegan, I just started a new thread explaining my circumstances. A bit on the long side but please take a look if you have a chance.

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113350

[davidmcbeth3]

How is Steen an expert in LIDAR? If his being determined to be an expert is required I would argue that he is not an expert. Read his qualifications...its a joke.