Washington State Ticket Discovery

[RJRab]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington

Hello,

I received a speeding ticket on 5/22 and filed for discovery about two weeks before my court date. They were very prompt and I picked it up the next day. I only received a cover letter, both sides of the ticket, and a laser smd affidavit. I'm hoping you guys can help me find a defense to contest it. Thanks

Cover Letter
Ticket Front
Ticket Back
Laser SMD Affidavit

There were some problems with the picture orientation if you download the image, but if you look at the photo on the site, it should work.

I also went to the court and looked at the smd cert book. I haven't had a chance to upload a copy of that yet. It was dated just last year though so I'm not sure how much it would help. Ok thanks again for any help.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

1. The officer did not establish a proper tracking history. The wording suggests that he obtained your speed on the LIDAR first rather than estimating that you appeared to be exceeding the speed limit, then confirming using the LIDAR.

2. The officer failed to state that the LIDAR passed all of the tests.

3. The officer failed to state WHEN the tests were performed on the LIDAR. How long before? How long after? He doesn't say.

When you get a chance to upload the SMD cert, please do.

[RJRab]

Thanks for the reply speedy.

Here's the smd cert:

LIDAR SMD Cert pg. 1
LIDAR SMD Cert pg. 2

Are those strong arguments? Do I have a winnable case here? If not, could I try for a plea deal to a non moving violation? The court clerk said a prosecutor will most likely not be present so I don't know if that's possible.

[BrendanjKeegan]

If a prosecutor is not there, you won't be able to make a plea bargain. As for the case, it's pretty strong against you. I would be inclined to go for the deferred finding on this one.

The only other thing I can find is that his handwriting is pretty atrocious. I can barely read that serial number.

[blewis]

I agree with Brendan about the deferral. The only argument that has any merit is Speedy's first one -- about the tracking history. Even the Pro-Laser III User's Manual states on page 26:

As long as the trigger is pulled, the ProLaser III will continue to update the displayed target speed with the most recently determined value. This allows the operator to correlate the displayed target speed with visual observations of the target vehicle, thus establishing the tracking history needed for introduction of the evidence into court.

No tracking history means that the device was not used according to the manufacturer's instructions. Other than that, the officer never gives his/her location. Plus, there is no mention of a "clear and unobstructed view" of the target, nor that the target was in sight of the officer the entire time.

But, as Brendan indicates, none of these are a "slam-dunk".

Barry