Radar Ticket in Washington State

[Speedy Gonzalez]

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: Washington.

On February 25th, about 9:00 AM, I got zapped for 65 in a 60 in unincorporated Snohomish County off Hwy 2. Officer said I was going 72. I filed my form with "Contested Hearing" checked. I get my trial date yesterday. It says April 5th, which is only 13 days until trial from the date it was received. Also, it said "Mitigated Hearing". I was like ???? Clearly a data entry error.

I filed discovery this morning. I had the clerk change the case to Contested Hearing. I asked if there was a statement from the officer, and there was, so she gives me a copy of it.

This is where the fun begins.

I ask when the notice of infraction was filed with the court. She says "March 12th". I got her to print out her screen and kept it. That's 11 business days. IRLJ 2.2(d) says they have 5 days. Strike 1!

I look at the officer's statement, and it begins "On Wednesday February 3rd..." This took me by surprise.

His statement is solely about the radar, direction, which antenna, settings, certified to use it, the serial number, tuning forks, etc., and that he checked the calibration before and after his shift.

I read over the entire statement, then get to the last line. He signed it as 2/3/2010 1:30 PM. Strike 2!

If the motion for dismissal with prejudice is not successful based on voilating IRLJ 2.2(d), This begs a couple interesting questions:

1. If the officer's sworn statement has the wrong date, should I be able to motion for it to be suppressed based solely upon this, because it is signed 23 days before the alleged infraction occurred?

2. If the motion to suppress the statement is granted, does any other part of the infraction matter at this point, since the statement about calibration, direction, antenna used, mode, etc., are all contained within the statement? No statement causes lack of foundation/evidence, doesn't it?

3. When a regular radar ticket is issued, are there any requirements about there having to file an affidavit? It seems to me that I read somewhere that one is required. Maybe that was laser. Don't recall.

4. What is deemed "reasonable" when it comes to verifying that the unit is working? 23 days seems like a long time to verify with the tuning forks.

Is this a home run?

[colemac65]

oh man this is not only a home run, this is the grand salami!!!!!

your 2.2d Motion should be sufficient

"your honor i would ask you to dismiss this case as the officer has not filed the infraction within 5 business days in accordance with irlj 2.2d"

the 2nd motion...

"your honor i would ask you to surpress the officers affidavit and the reason i make that motion is because the officer indicates on the affidavit that the alleged violation occurred 22 days before the notice of infraction was issued, he also signed it 22 days before the infraction was issued"

Between these two, like i said you have a grand slam.....remember keep it simple unless the judge asks for more information.....but ill bet a paycheck that you get dismissed based on the delayed filing of the NOI

[Speedy Gonzalez]

I was reading in another thread where you posted this:

"You could also ask for the affidavit to be surpressed becasue the city has not incorporated the affidavit by reference, IE, they have written an affidavit that IS NOT CERTIFIED UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY that does not make any reference to your actual infraction. I would argue that the officer without the affidavit referencing the notice of infraction, cannot and has not made a prima facia corpis issue. In other words they have not identified who the "subject" is that is referenced in the affidavit. Had the officer incorporated by reference the citation number and we could factually determine that the affidavit is for your case, and that you are the "subject" but no where in it, does he mention your name or state that that affidavit is in fact the one that matches up with the infraction."

I noticed something similar about the sworn statement in my case. While it is certified under penalty of purjury, nowhere on the sworn statement does it make a reference to my name or the case number. For all anyone knows, this could have accidentally been placed in my file.

The NOI states:

Officer's Report for Citation/Notice of Infraction # XY0122XXX
The information contained in and attached to this citation/notice of infraction is incorportated by reference into this report.

-purjury clause-
-officer signature-

On the "Washington State Patrol Case Report" (the sworn statement), it does not specifically reference my name, the citation number, or anything, but it does have the phrase:

"The information contained in and attached to this citation/notice of infraction is incorporated by reference into this report."

Does that cover them? I mean the only thing linking the two is the quite literally the staple holding them together. Nowhere on the ticket does it state that I was clocked at 72 (just says 65 in a 60), but in the sworn statement/"case report" it does.

I see this like hunting for bear. You don't go out with your shotgun and only one shell. I want as much ammunition as I can get my hands on, and I will use them in order from most to least significant.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

My plan of attack. I think I have this in the bag. There is no way I can get shut down for all of these. If so, then there is an appeal.

“I motion for dismissal with prejudice for a violation of IRLJ 2.2 (d). The notice of infraction was filed with the court March 12, 2010, which is eleven business days from the date the notice of infraction was issued."

If necessary...

“If we go by the date of the signature on the officer’s sworn statement, then the filing date is 29 business days after the notice of infraction was issued.”

If that fails…

“I motion to suppress the citing officer’s sworn statement and motion for dismissal with prejudice. There is a major date discrepancy between the citing officer’s electronically signed sworn statement and the date on the notice of infraction. The date entered by the officer is ‘2/3/2010 1:30:00 PM’. This is 23 days before the date on the notice of infraction. The citing officer also makes reference to this same date at the top of his sworn statement as being a Wednesday, which is the correct day of the week for February 3, 2010; However, the alleged infraction took place on Thursday February 25, 2010 at about 9:00 AM. The notice of infraction was issued to me on Thursday February 25, 2010.”

If that fails…

“I motion to suppress the citing officer’s sworn statement and motion for dismissal with prejudice. The 2/3/2010 date on the citing officer’s sworn statement invalidates the stated calibration and testing of the radar unit listed in the officer's statement, since the officer swears under penalty of perjury that the calibration and testing was performed more than three weeks earlier than the date on the notice of infraction, which could have substantially affected the radar unit's ability to measure speed.”

If that fails…

“I motion to suppress the officer’s written statement and motion for dismissal with prejudice on grounds of lack of foundation. Nowhere in the officer’s sworn statement does the notice of infraction number, case number, or any other identifying information appear that links the sworn statement and the notice of infraction.”

[BrendanjKeegan]

I haven't read your discovered materials, but I think you are well on your way if not all the way there.

What about subsections? Maybe a screw up there, too? Cole is an avid supporter of the subsections argument.

Brendan

[Speedy Gonzalez]

I haven't read your discovered materials, but I think you are well on your way if not all the way there.

What about subsections? Maybe a screw up there, too? Cole is an avid supporter of the subsections argument.

Brendan

Discovery hasn't arrived from the prosecutor's office as of yet. I obtained a copy of the ticket, the report, and the statement from the court.

He cited me with "46.61.400 SPEEDING 5 MPH OVER LIMIT (OVER 40)". There is no subsection listed, nor does 46.61.400 mention this description. What do you use as the argument? I wouldn't mind adding another argument to the arsenal.

At this point there is pretty much no way they can get around the 5 days, and definitely no way they can get around the date on the sworn statement. I don't think they will be able to get around the fact that the statement is dated 23 days before the NOI, and the fact that it makes ZERO references to me, the ticket, or my car, etc. Complete lack of foundation, the way I see it.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

OK, someone sanity check me here, please.

Motion #1

"I motion for dismissal with prejudice per IRLJ 2.2(d). The notice of infraction was filed with the court eleven business days after it was issued."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion #2 (if they don't respond to discovery)

"I motion to suppress the officer's statement and motion for dismissal with prejudice for a violation of IRLJ 3.1(b). I filed a discovery request with the court and the prosecutor's office on February 23rd (show proof if needed), and received no response to my discovery request as of yesterday's mail."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion #3

"I motion to suppress the officer's statement and motion for dismissal with prejudice. I make these motions for two reasons. I believe the officer's statement lacks sufficiency, and lacks foundation."

"With respect to sufficiency, the officer's statement lists Wednesday February 3rd, 2010 as that date the calibration and testing of the radar unit was performed. The notice of infraction was issued on February 25th, 2010, the day I was stopped by officer XXXXX. February 3rd is 23 days before the notice of infraction was issued. No evidence exists to factually determine if these tests were ever performed on the day the notice of infraction was issued."

"As to lack of foundation, the officer's statement makes no references to any information on the the notice of infraction. My name does not appear in the officer's statement, nor does a description of my vehicle, nor does the case number, nor does the date the notice of infraction was issued. No evidence exists to factually establish any correlation between the two documents."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not going to attempt the State V. Leach argument.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

As of today's mail, no discovery response.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

Still no response to discovery.

[Exhibitionist of Speed]

So have you read over your discovery documents (affidavit mainly) and found the SMD certificate and examined it?

If not, you need to do so ASAP, it doesn't matter if they send it to you or not, you still want to read over those papers. Like you said, you want more ammo than required (or if you can, more than reasonable).

And once you obtain the affidavit and SMD cert, please scan it and put it up on this thread so we can help you more.

Once you get a hold of documents, there are so many more things that could be picked out, maybe there is a reason they are so slow, maybe the documents have so many holes that they are just trying to cover up their problems.