What Defenses Are Available for a Washington State Speeding Ticket

[nkb]

Speeding ticket in the state of: washington

Backstory: I was pulled over by the officer by him pointing at me. It didnt appear that he had the lidar clocking me. I babbled when he pulled me over, but i didnt say i was speeding. He said "oh we usually give people a warning and then he went back to his car and wrote me a ticket.

Fast forward: I contested the ticket and filed for discovery a suggested in Barry's super awesome post. This is what i got -





The only defense I can scrounge up is if the filing date is the 15th and not the 13th. If its the 15th I would motion for suppression persuant to irlj 2.2. But thats not much to stand on because kitsap county sends a prosecutor and even though its 10 days on the 13th, the court was closed the 6th-10th after I got my ticket and they would counter with "good cause" I also checked through the online database and it said filed 6/13. (sidenote: the clerk told me "it doesnt matter when it was filed and we were still filling things when we were closed")

Other minor things i noticed; The officers affidavit says it was tested prior to and after the stop but makes no refrence to who tested it, my address is wrong (but i suppose thats my fault for not getting a new license), they spelled my name wrong on the discovery even though it was on the request twice, the car isn't my car and he didnt fill in that info, i did have a passenger, i didnt "have nothing to say", the second page wasnt even signed even though i think its part of the report.

Yes, i did recieve my court date within the allotted time same with the discovery. When i went in to watch some hearings and file for discovery, they were done but the prosecuter told me since its my first the could offer me "inattention to driving" which is a non moving violation but it costs 138. If I don't come up with something better, i'll probably settle for that. My court date is the 8th so any advice/ideas for arguments would be super helpful. Sorry for the length. THANKS!

[BrendanjKeegan]

Well, here's what I advise if you're going to contest it:

I'd start with IRLJ 2.2.
If it doesn't work, make a motion to dismiss as there is an indefinite time as to when the device was tested. How long before and after the stop?
If that doesn't work, try your idea of the hearsay argument - we don't know who tested it.
If you're still stuck, make an argument about the location of the officer. The officer never indicates his location, so how do we know if there were any cars in between you and the officer?
If you're still swinging, make an argument about the distance not being recorded. Was it more than the Prolaser III can handle or could it possibly have been less?
If you are still not getting anywhere, make an argument that the officer never indicates how it was internally and externally tested. Were all the recommended tests per the manufacturers instructions performed, or was only one test done?
And if you're still unlucky, I would argue and ask the judge if a boiler plate affidavit like this one violates the idea behind IRLJ 3.3(c).
Then, if you still need a home run, go with the Bellevue v. Mociulski argument.

Good luck.

[nkb]

Is there some sort or statute or case law that would, i suppose, bolster the argument dealing with the indefinite time and the tests required by the manufacturer and the position of the officer. I'm kind of a pessimist and i feel like they would argue how its relavent or something. The distance is in there on the NOI, its like 953 feet. I'm planning to go in and watch a few cotested tickets, as this is all very new.

[BrendanjKeegan]

Is there some sort or statute or case law that would, i suppose, bolster the argument dealing with the indefinite time and the tests required by the manufacturer and the position of the officer.

Well, in order for someone to counter the argument of indefinite time they would need to assume facts not in evidence. My objection to this would be "Your honor, I object. Counsel is assuming facts not in evidence. Unless the prosecutor can directly prove that the device was tested within a reasonable amount of time, I resubmit my motion to dismiss."

I'm kind of a pessimist and i feel like they would argue how its relavent or something. The distance is in there on the NOI, its like 953 feet. I'm planning to go in and watch a few cotested tickets, as this is all very new.

Again, you're assuming something that hasn't been testified to. Yeah, I see the number 963 on the NOI, but does that mean it's 963 feet? Meters? What? It doesn't even say that this is the distance he clocked you at. Could be the number of times he used the lidar gun. Point being: we have no definitive proof.

Basically, make the prosecution dot every i and cross every t. If there's any bit of ambiguity, make a motion to dismiss. The prosecution has not met there burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence that the officer tested the device himself as well as a number of other things.

[blewis]

The prosecution has not met there burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence that the officer tested the device himself as well as a number of other things.

The only problem with that, Brendan, is that "Preponderance of Evidence" does NOT have to rise to the level of "Clear and Convincing". Preponderance means there can be PLENTY of doubt, but it's still "more likely than not" that you committed the offense.

My advice would be to start with the IRLJ 2.2 (d) argument. If the prosecutor says something about the court being closed, ask the judge if he would ask one of the clerks to step in and testify that they were, indeed, "filing" NOI's that were received during that time, so the officer's failure to submit the NOI is NOT "good cause". Otherwise, I'd argue that the officer does not disclose HIS location -- nor did he state that he had a clear and unobstructed view of your vehicle. What are the odds of yours being the ONLY vehicle on SR 16 for a distance greater than 3 football fields -- EVER?

But, I think the IRLJ 2.2(d) argument should be enough. Well, I hope, anyway.

Barry

[BrendanjKeegan]

The only problem with that, Brendan, is that "Preponderance of Evidence" does NOT have to rise to the level of "Clear and Convincing". Preponderance means there can be PLENTY of doubt, but it's still "more likely than not" that you committed the offense.

I guess what I meant to say was that the prosecution has not been able to prove to a legal degree of certainty the fact that the officer tested it within a reasonable amount of time. It looks like I also said "there" instead of "their." DOH! Two amateur's mistakes...

[nkb]

result: So, i went to court today early to see how the hearings for these went and then go to mine, not what i was expecting. The county procecuter called roll and then explained that people could take the deferral, get the fine reduced, take an inattention to driving, or contest it. Based on the two actual contested heaings i witnessed, i felt pretty good about contesting it (judge reduced the fine for the first one an then dismissed the second). So after everyone but myself and one other guy (who had been pulled over by the same cop) left, she looked at the actual evidence against us. After looking at it for a few minutes she turns to us and goes, "im going to dismiss this based on insufficency of the officers report" It was pretty cool. I was kind of looking forward to arguing my case but i'll call it a win. Thanks so much guys.

Added note: The only evidence she really looked at was the affidavit, so im glad they dont like lazy cops either.

[sreneel77]

I'm going to be requesting a deferral in WA state. Even though it's not the same, this gives me a little hope.
Glad everything worked out ok for you.