Speeding Ticket in Washington State (Officer's Statement and Radar Cert Included)

[Sonic77777]

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

I opened discovery and received both the officer's statement and the radar cert in the mail this afternoon.

I have a few ideas about this case, I've been reading other threads, but will reserve any ideas I have until the people who actually know what they are talking about have a chance to check out the documents.

Also, let me just say that the officer boldly misrepresented and changed my words to him in a few important instances, to his benefit, but I am not even going to get into that because when it is my word against his I don't really feel that I stand a chance.

Is there anything in these documents that can be to my benefit?


The documents are below:

[Speedy Gonzalez]

Your motions are as follows:

1. Your honor, I move for dismissal. The entire sworn statement is written in third-person, and there is no factual evidence to suggest that the person who wrote the narrative is the person who signed it. For all we know, officer Tate could be attesting to a statement written by someone else. It certainly appears that way to the average layman.

2. Your honor, I move for dismissal. The narrative suggests that he observed my speed to be 'in excess of the 25 MPH posted speed limit', but does not give his qualifications to estimate speed visually.

3. Your honor, I move for dismissal. The sworn statement states that the unit was tested, but does not say WHO tested it. Since it is written in third person, there is no factual evidence to support whether officer Tate tested the unit, or someone else, thus there is no factual evidence to suggest that officer Tate had firsthand knowledge of the calibration results. If the officer has no direct knowledge of the calibration of the unit, he cannot attest to someone else's certification.

4. Your honor, I move for dismissal. The narrative suggests that the radar was calibrated before and after every shift, but it is indefinite as to when it actually took place.

5. Your honor, I move for dismissal. The narrative does not state what mode of operation that the radar had been placed in. If it was set to moving mode, it would not give an accurate reading of the speed of my vehicle. Since this information is completely omitted, there is no factual evidence to suggest that it was in the proper mode of operation.

And... when the officer starts speaking in first person:

6. Your honor, I move for dismissal. In the written statement, when the officer speaks in first person, the officer suggests that he paced my vehicle. He does not say how he obtained the "in excess of 35 MPH" reading. He does not mention any certification of the speedometer in the vehicle, whether or not he switched the radar from stationary to moving modes, nor any other evidence to suggest any way to determine how he arrived at this 35 MPH number.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Are the courts in Washington cockeyed enough to buy into that? Number 1 sounds like a complete waste of time. Number 4 sounds almost as hopeless. As for number 2, the officer's ticket is based on radar, so moving to dismiss based upon his visual estimate is also sounds like a waste of time.

Number 3 is more interesting, as the affidavit suggests that the person who signed the affidavit supervises maintenance, but does not suggest that he performs it, nor does it identify how he verified that it was performed. You may be able to make something out of foundational and hearsay issues.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

Are the courts in Washington cockeyed enough to buy into that? Number 1 sounds like a complete waste of time. Number 4 sounds almost as hopeless. As for number 2, the officer's ticket is based on radar, so moving to dismiss based upon his visual estimate is also sounds like a waste of time.

Number 3 is more interesting, as the affidavit suggests that the person who signed the affidavit supervises maintenance, but does not suggest that he performs it, nor does it identify how he verified that it was performed. You may be able to make something out of foundational and hearsay issues.

Cockeyed? No. It's called they sign an affidavit/sworn statement that Washington allows the officer to submit in lieu of attending the hearing. If the affidavit/sworn statement cannot/does not authenticate things properly, then it is invalid. There is about a 60% chance that the officer screws up something on the affidavit/sworn statement.

[Mr. Knowitall]

I understand what an affidavit is. It's that most of your objections seem frivolous. My personal preference is to present meritorious defenses, rather than risking flooding the court with a torrent of bathwater and accidentally flushing away the baby.

[Sonic77777]

I had a thought. Is there anything on the books in Washington that would allow me to pass in excess of the speed limit?

I was passing only because I wanted to get out of the blind spot of the semi and wanted to do so before the lanes merged (we were towards the outskirts of town).

Also, the officer's statement fails to mention the distance I was away when he registered me on radar. He also fails to mention the cars around me or even what lane I was in. Is this of importance? It seems like it would be, because it helps to determine the accuracy of the radar reading.