Speeding Ticket Defenses in Washington State

[xorti]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: Washington (WA)

Expert Law Gurus,

I've read and followed the directions on Barry's Washington State sticky and now need some direct help.

I was driving down I-90 on a trip from the Seattle area to Spokane when I received a 10 over speeding ticket outside Ritzville. Honestly, I doubt I was going much over the speed limit. Maybe a little over, but you know.. there wasn't a car in sight and it was a huge straight stretch; I may have strayed a bit from 70 without thinking about it. Certainly not anything most people would consider unsafe. Even my wife as a passenger agreed with me about how ridiculous the ticket was (a rare event).

Here is the timeline so far:

• I was polite with the officer and promtly sent the ticket in for a contested hearing
• They sent back an appropriatly timed contested hearing date but I wasn't able to make it that day
• I asked for a continuance in a simple letter and recieved a new hearing date
• I then sent in Barry's request for discovery materials with the exact items listed on his form
• They pushed my hearing date back again since, according to the clerk over the phone, now the prosecutor had to get involved
• I recieved a packet with the exact contents shown here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29029872/Unt...cted_Small.pdf
• I am posting this now for your review and advice

A couple of points of potential interest:

• I sent three copies of the request for discovery materials form and requested in writing that I get one back with a time stamp from the clerk and another back with a time stamp from the prosecutor's office. I received none back.
• Is that boilerplate "Laser Speed Affidavit" the same as the officer's sworn statement? Can this be used?
• The letter indicates that I simply stated "ok". That seems overly vague to me.
• I cannot deffer as I have done so in the past 7 years.

Thanks for your help,
Mike

Note: The above pdf is compressed but I can supply the larger one if it is illegible.

- - - Updated - - -

I think I found something:

The latest calibration certificate as well as the service record for that SMD tag number (L12708) states a different serial number than in the officer's affidavit. Can I argue that since there is no device described in the affidavit in existence then it is then impossible to properly calibrate it? Or should I go with it being impossible to prepare a defense since I cannot verify that the device is calibrated correctly? See documents in the links below in conjunction with my above scanned document.

Certification: https://fortress.wa.gov/wsp/smdsearch/Display/CertificationPrint/1717
Service Record: https://fortress.wa.gov/wsp/smdsearch/Archives/L1278.pdf

Also, the affidavit says the officer was operating the device while the target we receding and the then the "Laser SMD showed a visual speed display of 80 MPH". The documentation for that device says that for a receding target the display should indicate a (-) speed. Can I use this if the above point doesn't work? Perhaps argue that the device must have been calibrated incorrectly if the officer's statement is correct since it did not give a negative speed for a receding target?

Next, the service record linked to above ends in 2011. Is the rest somewhere else? Should I request it or is this something I can use?

Any advice would be helpful. Aside from overcoming this one incident, I really would like to learn more about the subject in general.

[Mr. Knowitall]

The latest calibration certificate as well as the service record for that SMD tag number (L12708) states a different serial number than in the officer's affidavit. Can I argue that since there is no device described in the affidavit in existence then it is then impossible to properly calibrate it?

You can argue it; there's not much to lose by arguing it. But I expect that the court will regard it as a minor clerical error, not a major flaw in the case.

Or should I go with it being impossible to prepare a defense since I cannot verify that the device is calibrated correctly?

Why is it impossible to prepare a defense? Defense #1: The typo justifies dismissing the case; Defense #2: If the typo does not justify dismissing the case, and the court finds that the same device is being referenced by the officer and in the discovery materials, the output of the device should not be admitted because of [your reasons].

Also, the affidavit says the officer was operating the device while the target we receding and the then the "Laser SMD showed a visual speed display of 80 MPH". The documentation for that device says that for a receding target the display should indicate a (-) speed. Can I use this if the above point doesn't work? Perhaps argue that the device must have been calibrated incorrectly if the officer's statement is correct since it did not give a negative speed for a receding target?

I don't think you are going to get anywhere with the notion that the officer should have noted your speed as negative 80 MPH.

I do find it interesting the "Attachment A" lists a "certification date" of 6/29/2010, but also states that it was certified for accuracy on 1/12/2011. I expect that they're referring to two different certifications, but perhaps the Washington gurus can comment.

Next, the service record linked to above ends in 2011. Is the rest somewhere else? Should I request it or is this something I can use?

That's probably all there is. Look at the dates - service occurs roughly at two year intervals.

[xorti]

Thanks for the reply and advice Mr. Knowitall,

I see what you mean about the discrepancy between the two dates in the last page, attachment A, of this document. Hopefully someone else has some advice about this.

So far it doesn't sound like I have any strong arguments though so I'm hoping someone else sees something that can give me a chance at this.

Defense #2: If the typo does not justify dismissing the case, and the court finds that the same device is being referenced by the officer and in the discovery materials, the output of the device should not be admitted because of [your reasons].

Any suggestions for what my reasons should be in the above quote?

Also, any suggestions for how I can push this court date out any further? Since it sounds like I might be fighting a losing battle here, I'd like to delay paying the fine and increasing my insurance rates for as long as I can. Money's a little tight right now.

[blewis]

I believe that the 6/29/10 date referred to in Appendix A is NOT the date the ProLaser III was calibrated -- that was done on 1/12/11. Part of the certification process is to compare the Unit Under Test with a "known" standard -- in this case a Decatur Electronic VPD (RADAR) unit with Tag Number S002. THAT'S the device that was last certified on 6/29/10, NOT the ProLaser.

Barry

[Speedy Gonzalez]

The only thing I see is that the officer never gives his exact location and does not state that he had a clear an unobstructed view of your vehicle. It is impossible to determine from his statement if he could have actually put the laser on your vehicle at 958.6' away from his location.

[xorti]

Thanks speedy, do you know of an RCW (maybe one that states that this information is required) that I can reference? Or some other information/points I can bring up to help substantiate this argument?

Also, I took a look at this area on Google maps: it's an S-curve that's pretty uneven and flanked in a couple areas by raised hills the road is cut through. Should I be sure to explain this? How strong of an argument will this be anyway?

Thanks again everyone!