45 in a 40 on Radar in King County Washington

[blewis]

Barry, Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between the regular unit and the unit with the "fastest" mode?

I don't know if I understand your question. I think you're asking what "fastest" mode is? In "normal" mode, a radar returns the speed of the target with the largest radar cross-section. In "fastest" mode the radar device will always return the speed of the "fastest" radar target -- regardless of radar cross-section. For a unit with "fastest" mode, you require TWO forks to check calibration. You first strike the 35 MPH fork and hold it in front of the SMD. It should read 35. Then, you strike the 55 MPH fork and hold that, as well. The reading should change to 55 -- regardless of WHICH fork is closer to the device. If that was NOT your question, please rephrase it.

Also, what are your thoughts that he was cited for subsection (2). I think that he might be able to argue that subsection two does not create a separate citable offense, but that's probably a long shot.

Really? What makes you think that "and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits" DOES NOT create a citable offense? It's similar wording to paragraph (1): "No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent ...."

Barry

[59baer]

Barry and Brenden,
Thanks so much for your help. The court was this morning. With a last name near the end of the alphabet, I got to watch everyone else run through the mill before me. At one point there was a line three deep for deferrals.

When I got my turn, I informed the judge I had several motions that I would like to make to suppress the officer's statement and will move for dismissal. She said "let me hear your motion." I used the before and after argument on testing the radar. That was all it took and the case was dismissed.

Here are the motions that I was prepared to use, but as noted, I only needed the first one. You guys are very helpful. Thank you very much
Barry

Motion #1
I motion to suppress the officer’s statement on lack of sufficiency and motion for dismissal. There is no indication that the radar detector was tested immediately before and immediately after the citation (probably should have used reasonably instead of immediately but I hadn't read the last two posts). The officer only states that this was unit was tested before. Further, the officer fails to specify a “reasonable or determinate time before.” As stated, it is unclear when, what day, or even what year the officer tested the unit

Motion #2
I motion to suppress the officer’s statement on lack of sufficiency and a motion for dismissal. The officer states that he was trained on the use of Radar and Lidar but he does not say that he is trained in the SPECIFIC USE of the Kustom Talon radar unit. Further, he does not specify WHEN he was trained nor the amount of his training. Based upon his statement, his training could have been 40 years ago with no further training or class work. Because of the advances of technology, he could not even know how to properly use the Kustom Talon system.

Motion #3
I motion to suppress the officer’s statement on lack of sufficiency and foundation and a motion for dismissal. The officer simply states that he used a 55 MPH tuning fork to test the unit. The Kustom Talon Traffic Safety Radar Operator’s Manual specifies that both a 35 MPH tuning fork and a 55 MPH tuning fork be used to test the proper operation of the unit. Further, it specifies that the 35 MPH tuning fork be used prior to the 55 MPH tuning fork. As no 35 MPH tuning fork is specified, the test was improper and should be disregarded. This is further confirmed in the US DOT Speed Measuring Device Performance Specifications.

Motion 4
I motion to suppress the officer’s statement on lack of sufficiency and a motion for dismissal. The officer does not state that he personally conducted the test. He simply states that a test was performed. Throughout the prior statement, the officer is very clear stating those items he was directly engaged in (e.g., “I was in uniform”, “I later identified”, “I observed”, “I aimed”, “my observations”, etc.). However, when it comes to the test, it only states that a test was performed. By who? Were they certified and qualified to perform the test?

Motion 5
I motion to suppress the officer’s statement on lack of sufficiency and a motion for dismissal. The officer did not specify the distance from the target. We have no knowledge if the acquisition point was within acceptable operating parameters.

[blewis]

Well, congratulations! Nice job!

Thanks for letting us know,
Barry

[BrendanjKeegan]

I don't know if I understand your question. I think you're asking what "fastest" mode is? In "normal" mode, a radar returns the speed of the target with the largest radar cross-section. In "fastest" mode the radar device will always return the speed of the "fastest" radar target -- regardless of radar cross-section. For a unit with "fastest" mode, you require TWO forks to check calibration. You first strike the 35 MPH fork and hold it in front of the SMD. It should read 35. Then, you strike the 55 MPH fork and hold that, as well. The reading should change to 55 -- regardless of WHICH fork is closer to the device. If that was NOT your question, please rephrase it.

Nope. That answered it. I was just trying to understand why a police department would buy a radar unit with fastest mode instead of just using the normal one. But now it makes perfect sense. Thanks.

Really? What makes you think that "and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits" DOES NOT create a citable offense? It's similar wording to paragraph (1): "No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent ...."

Well, yes, I understand that it is similar wording but I don't see where this subsection says anything about a 40 mph street. It defines 3 other situations but not a situation of 40 mph. But I guess that it does not matter due to the nature of the last paragraph stating "The maximum speed limits set forth in this section may be altered as authorized..."

Notice I called my own idea out, too. I didn't think it was worth it, either. I pretty much just thought out loud.

OP: Did the judge say anything about you stating "before and after the arrest?" I would like to see if a judge would rule that a test needs to be done afterwards. Thanks.

Brendan

[blewis]

Well, yes, I understand that it is similar wording but I don't see where this subsection says anything about a 40 mph street. It defines 3 other situations but not a situation of 40 mph. But I guess that it does not matter due to the nature of the last paragraph stating "The maximum speed limits set forth in this section may be altered as authorized..."

Notice I called my own idea out, too. I didn't think it was worth it, either. I pretty much just thought out loud.

I have done some thinking along those lines, as well. When I received a ticket back in 2004 for 52 in a 35 zone, I started looking into traffic law, in general. RCW 46.61.400 (2) specifically sets out three speed limits -- none of which is 35 MPH. Therefore, in order to have a 35 MPH speed limit, the local government (or the state, I suppose) had to change it from the statutory limit of 25, 50, or 60, depending upon the type of road that it was.

Now, in order to "alter as authorized" the statutory limit, a local municipality or county MUST comply with RCW 46.61.415, which states:

(1) Whenever local authorities in their respective jurisdictions determine on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that the maximum speed permitted under RCW 46.61.400 or 46.61.440 is greater or less than is reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon a highway or part of a highway, the local authority may determine and declare a reasonable and safe maximum limit thereon ....

So, I submitted an FOIA request to the city for the "engineering and traffic investigation" which justified the 35 MPH limit on the road I was on. Well, a week AFTER my hearing, I got a letter stating that NO SUCH "investigation" report exists. (That's the problem with FOIA requests -- you can't give them a deadline.)

I've always wondered -- if a municipality "shortcuts" the process and illegally alters a speed limit by NOT performing the requisite study, is the speed limit valid? Can a citation actually be enforced? Food for thought....

Barry

[BrendanjKeegan]

Wow, That is really interesting.

To think that municipalities everywhere can be changing the speed limits ILLEGALLY.

Alright, so let's say this: You, Barry, are ticketed on a portion of SR 524 that is 35 mph. Lets say I, Brendan, go to the FOIA and request the investigation. And then I receive a statement saying that no such investigation exists.

Furthermore, as outraged as I am, I go to the Lynnwood City Council and tell them that they are not in compliance with the law and demand that it be changed. Now let's say it's changed based on my request.

Would your ticket be invalidated if they changed the speed limit back to the speed limit prescribed under subsection 2?

What an interesting argument. You know, next time I, or someone I know receives a speeding ticket on a road that has a speed limit of something other than 25, 50 or 60, I think I might file for something like that using the FOIA.

Or, better yet... asking the prosecutor to offer evidence before the court that such an investigation exists?

What an interesting find. I really applaud that. Five stars with two thumbs way up. I'm very intrigued.

Brendan