Looking for Discovery Review

[Washington Driver]

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

Hi, it would be very helpful if someone could review my discovery material and help me in coming up with a good argument in the court.




The radar certification looks okay: http://cid-dff48d9b9a44af9f.office.l...blic/Radar.pdf

Your help is very much appreciated,
Thanks.

[jjb]

There's a typo in the officers notes on the tuning fork serial number... Not sure that's going to help but I thought I'd point it out...

[BrendanjKeegan]

After reviewing the affidavit, there are a few things that you can take advantage of.

First: The officer testified to using a fork numbered 007874. When cross checking this with the SMD certificate, we find that this tuning fork was not prescribed for the calibration of this unit. (It's obviously a typo, but typos don't fly in law.)

Second: He stated he was using the unit in the moving mode. He does not, however, state that he tested the unit in the moving mode. If he tested it with one fork in the stationary mode, then this itself would be evidence enough for a stationary conviction. But he said he was in the moving mode. Therefore he must use both the tuning forks to test the SMD's calibration.

Third: He states that he was in the moving mode, but there is no evidence that the speedometer's window and the speed reading of the radar gun were the same. To add to this, the officer hasn't listed a patrol car number so there is no way to ensure that the officer's patrol car was calibrated and was working correctly with the moving radar.

Fourth: He was in moving mode, but he doesn't state he was moving.

Fifth: Location. He failed to pinpoint an exact location. At, Near, and From are entirely different things. Also, he pinpointed your car, but where was his? He could have been 3 miles away. Without knowing where he was, how can he prove that it was ONLY your car that he saw.

Sixth: Something that has bothered me for a long time now is, How long is before and after a shift? I never was annoyed by it until recently. It doesn't say he performed it immediately at the end and at the beginning of his shift. Before and after the shift could be weeks before and weeks after the shift. The prosecution has a prima facie duty to prove that the SMD was working properly at the time of the reading. Weeks before and then weeks after a shift is not proving that it was working properly at the time of the reading. (I know people disagree with this, but I think it's worth an argument. IMHO, the gun should be tested before and after each individual citation.)

Seventh: It's a red flag that someone can be one hundred percent certain on something. He needs to back up this claim. Were you one hundred percent certain because there was only one car on the road? Or are you just saying that? It seems to me that this statement subscribes to the logical fallacy of small numbers. You can go into a huge argument using logical fallacies, but that can get really long and boring.

I think seven is decent. There's some others, but I think these will work just fine.