Speeding Ticket With Speed Measuring Device Serial Numbers Wrong, in Washington

[slowpoke]

I got a speeding ticket in Lewis County, WA, (+10 over the limit) and have contested it.
I've filed for discovery and have subpoenaed the SMD expert and am set up to subpoena the citing officer before my court date in the next couple months, 2008.

I've gone through the discovery paperwork and have found one mistake. I am hoping it will invalidate the calibration of the SMD device and have my case thrown out:
There are 2 calibration forks used with each SMD device, each with a corresponding serial number. The serial numbers between the officers report and the actual logged serial numbers from the prosecutor's documents are different. Does this mean the unit may not be calibrated correctly?

My only other cases are:
-Officer was rounding a bend when he took my speed. Does this matter?
-I had been passing people, and my speed may have been warranted by acceleration to pass (I don't have the RCW handy). Has this ever worked for at least a reduction?
-The legibility of the issued ticket is questionable. A number in the written RCW is sloppy/almost unreadable and the explanation of "speed" written next to it looks more like "spcbd". This one is a long shot, I know.

My other MAIN questions for anyone willing to help are:
-Should I definitely request the SMD expert and officer to be there? Are there any potential downsides to doing this?
-Should I request further items, such as the officer's log book, SMD device manual, etc.?

Any other advice is truly helpful.
Thanks!

[slowpoke]

I'm posting again about this because I think I need to reset my court date before its too late!!!!! I haven't gotten any replies (I know its only been a couple days), but I think I need to change my court date to asap to avoid having the SMD expert there and the citing officer. Help!

Please read my post from earlier for all the details and I will be forever grateful!

(With no SMD expert or officer there, the mismatched serial numbers on the SMD calibration logs will get the case dismissed...?)

Thank you all........

[seniorjudge]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Post your questions in your original thread.

[slowpoke]

I'll make it easy. Here's the original thread (just a couple posts down):

"I got a speeding ticket in Lewis County, WA, (+10 over the limit) and have contested it.
I've filed for discovery and have subpoenaed the SMD expert and am set up to subpoena the citing officer before my court date in the next couple months, 2008.

I've gone through the discovery paperwork and have found one mistake. I am hoping it will invalidate the calibration of the SMD device and have my case thrown out:
There are 2 calibration forks used with each SMD device, each with a corresponding serial number. The serial numbers between the officers report and the actual logged serial numbers from the prosecutor's documents are different. Does this mean the unit may not be calibrated correctly?

My only other cases are:
-Officer was rounding a bend when he took my speed. Does this matter?
-I had been passing people, and my speed may have been warranted by acceleration to pass (I don't have the RCW handy). Has this ever worked for at least a reduction?
-The legibility of the issued ticket is questionable. A number in the written RCW is sloppy/almost unreadable and the explanation of "speed" written next to it looks more like "spcbd". This one is a long shot, I know.

My other MAIN questions for anyone willing to help are:
-Should I definitely request the SMD expert and officer to be there? Are there any potential downsides to doing this?
-Should I request further items, such as the officer's log book, SMD device manual, etc.?

Any other advice is truly helpful.
Thanks!"

[slowpoke]

Well, I just found out that the SMD expert is going to be there and i can't change this fact or my court date. I probably will not subpoena the officer, but I'm still hoping that the SMD inconsistencies will stand even witht he SMD expert there.

Anybody?

[blewis]

I've gone through the discovery paperwork and have found one mistake. I am hoping it will invalidate the calibration of the SMD device and have my case thrown out:
There are 2 calibration forks used with each SMD device, each with a corresponding serial number. The serial numbers between the officers report and the actual logged serial numbers from the prosecutor's documents are different. Does this mean the unit may not be calibrated correctly?

If you had not subpoenaed the SMD expert, this may have worked. However, the SMD expert may testify that the serial numbers don't really matter -- just the frequency. And it's difficult, if not impossible to un-subpoena someone.

My only other cases are:
-Officer was rounding a bend when he took my speed. Does this matter?

If, by that, you mean you were approaching at an angle rather than straight on, NO, it doesn't matter. Any angular approach causes the radar to show a reading LOWER than your actual speed.

-I had been passing people, and my speed may have been warranted by acceleration to pass (I don't have the RCW handy). Has this ever worked for at least a reduction?

Only if you were on a two-lane road -- one lane in each direction. RCW 46.61.425 allows that:

a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.120 on highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction, at only such a speed and for only such a distance as is necessary to complete the pass with a reasonable margin of safety.

-The legibility of the issued ticket is questionable. A number in the written RCW is sloppy/almost unreadable and the explanation of "speed" written next to it looks more like "spcbd". This one is a long shot, I know.

Take a look at this thread. It is also about an illegible ticket. It was enough for a dismissal in that case. It will depend on your judge.

--Should I request further items, such as the officer's log book, SMD device manual, etc.?

You will not be able to get the officer's log (see IRLJ 3.1(b)). You might be able to get the SMD manual by way of a FOIA request to the city clerk of whatever city you're in.

Hope this helps,
Barry

[slowpoke]

Thanks Barry!

Dang it all...I shouldn't have subpoenaed the SMD expert!
I'm working on changing my court date, but I'm going to have to put it in writing, and I expect nothing to come from it.

I guess my only chance is to rely on getting it reduced by claiming that I was passing someone. The officer's report only says "light" traffic, but there are no notes beyond that. He will not be there, unless he shows up on his own, as I am not serving him a subpoena.

I really thought the mismatched serials on the calibration forks would mean the calibration was done incorrectly. Hmpfh.

I will keep a post on this, and any other advice is very appreciated.

Thanks!

[blewis]

Since you've already subpoenaed the SMD expert, even if they grant your continuance, they will reschedule for a different date when SMD expert cases will be heard -- the court sets aside cases so that the SMD expert only has to come, say, one day every two weeks. ALL cases in which he has been subpoenaed are heard on that date.

I have read several "beat your ticket" web sites that claim that forks are unique to a given radar device. However, I spoke with a guy in marketing at Kustom Signals and he explained otherwise. Basically, each fork is NIST-traceable, which is why they are serialized. However, since EVERY fork that is tuned to, say, 500 Hz, is tuned using the same NIST standard, they are completely interchangeable. At least that what I understood him to say. Besides, the forks get beat up, warped, bent, etc. over time. They also produce different tones at different temperatures. That's why radar devices are only accurate to plus or minus 1 - 2 MPH, depending on the device.

Nevertheless, I would certainly bring up the point about the forks. If they don't have their records about fork S/N's straight, perhaps the records for which SMD device was in which vehicle or which device is on the certification is wrong, as well.

In other words, there is a serial number for the SMD device and the for the forks in the officer's notes. There is also a serial number for the SMD device and for the forks in the discovery information from the prosecutor's office. You assume that the forks may not be the correct ones. But, what if the forks listed in the officer's notes ARE correct and it's the SMD device serial number that's wrong.

Now they might be trying to introduce a certification for an SMD device that may NOT have been the particular unit that was used.

I hope you understand all that -- rereading it, it's a little confusing, even to me.

Barry

[slowpoke]

Yes, this does make sense, and thank you for expounding...

I will recheck the records to see if the two S/Ns on the affidavit match up to a different SMD unit. This should probably be my first line of defense, and hopefully the SMD expert can't find a way to invalidate my claim.

I suppose if this is rejected or laughed at, I'll try to get it reduced on vehicle-passing terms (yes, it was a two lane road).

The fork info you heard is interesting. It seems that I should find out exactly what SMD model was used, and then request that manual to see if it explicitly states anything about fork S/Ns. I think I saw another thread about the FOIA, so I'll check that out.

Thanks again...more to come!

[blewis]

I wouldn't ask the SMD expert ANYTHING. Just let him testify. Unless there is a particular issue, I wouldn't even bother to cross-examine him. You can't make any points -- he's the expert.

When the state rests it's case, that's the time to point out the discrepancies between the two items.

And the make/model and serial number should be in the officer's statement. If not, you've got a slam-dunk on your hands.

The officer's statement should also state your location -- including the lane. But, yep, your defense is that you were passing a slow-moving vehicle, and you were just slowing back down. Since the officer was coming at you (I think) from around a bend, he might not have seen this.

Barry