54 in a 40 on Radar

[59baer]

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: Washington, King County

So now my 3rd son gets a ticket. This is in a known speed trap rolling down a hill in unincorporated King County. He was cited for 54 in a 40. I have seen previous versions of this officer's printed statements and it looks like the officer has dramatically improved his statement. The older statements had big enough holes to drive a truck through. However, I am not quite sure how to attack this one. I have included the discovery materials:
Cover Letter
Front of Ticket
Officer Statement
Certification

The tuning fork and SMD unit numbers line up with the certification that was provided. The officer states that he checked the unit with the tuning forks before and after his shift. Is is a stretch to note that he does not specify which day he before and after his shift he checked the unit? What other ideas do you have on this one?

Thanks,
Barry

[BrendanjKeegan]

Have you thought about obtaining the engineering and traffic survey for the specific road where the infraction took place?

[59baer]

Hi Brendan,

We have not thought about an engineering or traffic survey. Talk to me more about what that would do or how I would get it.

On a very interesting note, my son was very clear that the officer was in an SUV when he was ticketed. On the day of the infraction, I asked if it was the motorcycle cop (since he is known to be in that area) and he told me that the officer was in an SUV. I asked again last night and got a confirmation that he was in an SUV. However, the officers statement was that he was "in uniform in a fully marked police motorcycle."

This seems significant as it will directly impact and change the radar device used in the citation and the calibration to determine if it was within specification. Is this a viable defense and how do disprove the officer's statement? The officer statement swears that this is true. Will a testimony stating that he was in an SUV carry the day? Are there any logs that we should get that would show which vehicle that the officer was using that day?

Let me know any additional thoughts you may have.

Thanks,
Barry

[BrendanjKeegan]

I don't think testimony to the fact that it wasn't a motorcycle would help. Unless you can prove it. Which is probably a waste of time.

What would help you is if he used a different radar. Let's say the officer said he used an Eagle II or a Raptor, then you would have a good argument in the sense that it would be pretty difficult to mount the radar and its antennas on the motorcycle.

As for radar testing logs, I have no knowledge of WA state requiring officers to do this. In fact, I have seen some people argue this with a subpoenaed officer and the judge will interrupt to say, "Trooper X's testimony to the fact that the SMD was tested is proof enough that the unit was."

So probably won't help you very much.

You may be able to make an argument about the tuning forks not being authenticated. Basically the argument would say something to the effect of "prove that the tuning forks themselves weren't damaged and were in good condition to calibrate this radar." But that's gonna be a long shot.

The engineering survey is mandated by RCW 46.61.405. You would need to call up the DOT to obtain the information. But the point is moot if the road is not a state highway or even a county road. I'm not familiar with the particular location, however.

If it turns out to be a county road, you can still move to dismiss because the pros has failed to charge you correctly. (This argument only works if a prosecutor is not present) Basically you argue that because the prosecution is not there to amend the charge, the judge cannot do it himself. If the judge tries to amend the speeds, you would object and explain that you believe he is acting in the dual capacity and you would like the record to show that you are objecting to this.

[blewis]

I think you may be on to something, Brendan. OP indicated that this was in unincorporated King County. Therefore, by definition, ALL roads are either county roads or state roads. According to RCW 46.61.400, the speed limit on a state road is 60 and on a county road it's 50. Now, the county, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION, may lower that limit pursuant to RCW 46.61.415. Since the speed limit on that section of road was 40, the county MUST have conducted such an investigation. You should be able to request a copy of the investigation through an FOIA request.

Oh, and actually, I've seen a motorcycle equipped with BOTH forward and rear facing RADAR antennas for moving operation, along with a LIDAR unit for stationary operation.

Barry

[59baer]

I must be in the slow class as this isn't clicking for me yet. It was a county road so the default would be 50 unless there is an engineering and traffic investigation. If there was not, it should be a limit of 50 but he was listed as doing 54 so that would still be speeding. If it was appropriately lowered to 40, he is still out of luck. Howe does this path work? FYI - I believe there is a prosecutor working this courtroom now. So, can you help me better understand this strategy?

Back on the vehicle the officer used: is there a log or something that would identify which vehicle he was using on that day or that would indicated if there are different types of SMD's used on motorcycles vs. the SUV?

Thanks
Barry