Re: Speeding Ticket While on a Federal Governed Wild Park
You are correct. The industry (and court accepted) standard is, I believe, +/- 2 MPH, not 100% accuracy. It matters not whether the radar is being used in stationary mode (cop sitting on the side of the road while you drive toward or away from him) or in moving mode (both vehicles in motion). So, you can legitimately argue the radar actually registered that your speed was somewhere between 73 MPH and 77 MPH. Radar beams travel at the speed of light (well, technically, a miniscule amount under the speed of light...not so you'd notice)...so, it takes less than one second to obtain a speed reading.
If you qualify as indigent, yes.
Omitting the serial number on the tuning forks (two should be used) and his training would be legitimate defense arguments in Washington State courts. I presume that would also be the case for most other states and Federal court. The officer also did not mention that he performed the calibration tests in accordance with his/her training or according to factory recomendations. I'm not aware of any "additional step" needed to test the unit for moving mode. Perhaps you are referring to an argument you may have read in other threads that the officer neglected to state that the "patrol speed" readout on the radar was consistent with his/her patrol vehicle's speedometer? If that were the case, that can also be a legitimate argument. However, in the statement you provided, the officer states that his patrol readout was 60 and his speedometer was 62 (within that +/- 2 MPH acceptable margin of error I mentioned above).
However, when I say an argument is "legitimate," I mean that the court is not likely to immediately reject the argument out of hand. Likewise, it does not mean that the court will immediately accept the argument as a per se defense and dismiss the charge, either. From my experience and what I have read on other threads, all of these arguments are hit or miss as a defense strategy.
Behind the badge is a person. Behind the person is an ego. This is as it should be, person at the center and ego to the back.