LIDAR Ticket King County, Washington

[lostintime]

You have to wonder how ignorant you'd have to be to assume that discovery is only about the LIDAR gun and its certificate.

Personally, I wonder how many opportunities one has in a period of a year where one can learn something, or contribute anything... Instead, all that time is spent being as useless as a house fly... Buzzing around, banging your head up against any glass window you can find, and irritating everybody you come around!

Proof of training...traffic surveys? Maybe a certificate from LTI saying the device passed quality control (like they would ever say otherwise)? Are those supposed to be magical now?

The case report has declared the LIDAR devices to already be working - via use of a template. It's not like the individual officer actually typed it, it's simply fill-in-the-blank. Essentially - the devices cannot be challenged.

[davidmcbeth3]

The case report has declared the LIDAR devices to already be working - via use of a template. It's not like the individual officer actually typed it, it's simply fill-in-the-blank. Essentially - the devices cannot be challenged.

Well, he did not ID the SMD he used so that's an issue. And the devices can be challenged - at least via their supporting documentation.

Right now, the cop did not testify to which SMD he used. And the Kustom v. LTI has different operational checks. LTI Has a delta distance chk that I do not see was performed. You agree?

[Speedy Gonzalez]

Has anyone ever gotten an expired certificate?

Yes, in fact we have. Many times. My last ticket was dismissed over the LIDAR's re-certification period AS THE STATE PATROL DEFINES IT having being expired. They state "a minimum of once every two years". If they aren't complying with their own testing program, then the device cannot be authenticated as reliable. This is simple logic. Not every officer gives a rip about whether the unit is within the last testing period or not. 99% of people never challenge a ticket. The 1% that do? 99% of them don't know that if the cert is expired that you can get the case dismissed. Not to poke you in the eye with a stick or anything, but it seems you're not to grasping the concept.

It means nothing more than buying signed a baseball card with a certificate of authenticity.

Yes, and just like baseball cards without the certificate of authenticity they aren't worth the paper they are printed on. A LIDAR without a current cert is bogus in EVERY LAST COURT in Washington. Period.

[lostintime]

It's also exceedingly rare for that happen. Impossible, no. No one is going to believe a sizeable percentage were written with an expired certificate. The reality is, they could just have a "stock certificate" for every system that is always current - if they wanted t.

Good to know WA at least has some sort of LIDAR protocol. It's non-existent elsewhere.

[bahl]

HAHAHA! Are you kidding me? I know EXACTLY where they do this. They sit at the 18000 block of 522 in Bothell. There is ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM to operate LIDAR in this area. The shoulder is barely enough to park a car in. I remember driving by a couple weeks ago, seeing them there and saying, "Hmm... they must be using Radar, because there is no way you cold use Lidar in this area."

You're golden in Issaquah without the results of the accuracy checks.

Oh, and if you get Judge LaSalata, definitely tell him (after your case is dismissed) that this is an uphill slope, in a curve, and that you think these officers do not know what they're doing if they're using LIDAR because you can't think of any greater place where sweep effect could be more prominent.

I can't even believe this. *Shakes head* WSP REALLY IS THIS LAZY!

Ok, so please assist in helping me articulate this as a motion to dismiss. I have no experience presenting a legal argument. Would you recommend I use an attorney for this? Thanks

"Your honor, the officer states that the device has been checked for accuracy but does not state the results of these checks. I move to dismiss as there is no statement from the witness as to the accuracy of the device."

...These guys just keep getting lazier and lazier...

Wouldn't the results of these checks be in the SMD logs? Is it common for the officer to go into the results in his/her statement? Sorry for being a noob, I just lack any experience with this matter.

[FloraL123]

Lidar detectors do not work as well with lidar units. Mostly due to the fact that if the lidar beam is directed at the license plate of a vehicle rather than the windshield, where the detector usually is located, the lidar beam goes undetected. The speeding evidence obtained by Radar or Lidar speed measurement is only as good as the officer presenting the evidence to the judge. In order for the evidence to be useful in traffic court it must be ruled admissible based on sufficient reason to believe that it is valid. Lidar is known to be more accurate than radar. Mostly due to the operating principles of lidar and the laser beam that bounced back from the speeding car. However, speeding tickets issued by Lidar are dismissed by the traffic court if it can be established that the lidar unit malfunctioned or the conditions were such that the speed reading was distorted by other factors.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

However, speeding tickets issued by Lidar are dismissed by the traffic court if it can be established that the lidar unit malfunctioned or the conditions were such that the speed reading was distorted by other factors.

Really? In what state? It sure isn't Washington. You won't get anywhere with the malfunction argument because YOU cannot prove that it malfunctioned. If you think you can, I'd like to hear how. Not many judges here will go either of these arguments.

If the cert is out of date, they have to toss the speed readings upon motion. Notice the following says shall. Not maybe.

(c) Continuance. The court at the time of the formal hearing
shall hear testimony concerning the infraction and, if necessary,
may continue the proceedings for the purpose of obtaining
evidence concerning an electronic speed measuring device and the
certification thereof. If, at the time it is supplied, the
evidence is insufficient, a motion to suppress the readings of
such device shall be granted.

[BrendanjKeegan]

Ok, so please assist in helping me articulate this as a motion to dismiss. I have no experience presenting a legal argument. Would you recommend I use an attorney for this?

Haha. It's simple, like I said earlier: "Your honor, the officer states that the device has been checked for accuracy but does not state the results of these checks. I move to suppress the speed reading and dismiss as there is no statement from the witness as to the accuracy of the device."

You can do it yourself. But if you don't want to go sit through court and read two sentences, then you can have a lawyer do it for you for $2-300.

Wouldn't the results of these checks be in the SMD logs? Is it common for the officer to go into the results in his/her statement? Sorry for being a noob, I just lack any experience with this matter.

Hahahahaha. SMD logs. You read that, Speedy/Barry? Sometimes I get a kick out of some of these OP's naivety.

A little thing about Washington: The officer's are not required to present an log of accuracy checks for their SMD (other states - like FL, KS, ND, and MT to name a few - this is required). In WA they only need to testify that they checked the device within a reasonable amount of time and that it was in proper working order. Because of this, most officers don't even keep a log of how many times they check the device. Do I agree with this? No. Do I think that a majority of officers don't do these tests? Yes. Can I prove it? Nope.

[That Guy]

Not to poke you in the eye with a stick or anything, but it seems you're not to grasping the concept.

You might want to start explaining what a "concept" is... I tried several times and couldn't get through to him!

[lostintime]

You might want to start explaining what a "concept" is... I tried several times and couldn't get through to him!

I understand the concept, onionhead.

It's still going to be extremely rare for them to ever hand over an expired certificate. Let's not present these ultra-rare events like they are somehow the norm.