Forming a Traffic Ticket Defense

[jjb]

Maybe the OP can do a FOIA request for it from WSP? OP might have a hard time with getting it in time, perhaps a continuance?

[BRUINSCOUT00001]

Another quick question...I am headed to court tommorow...I was looking at my notice to appear for my court date on May 6th...it was mailed out to me on the April 16th...which is 20 days dont they only have 14 days from the time they mail it out till the court date or am I misunderstanding that?

[BrendanjKeegan]

Another quick question...I am headed to court tommorow...I was looking at my notice to appear for my court date on May 6th...it was mailed out to me on the April 16th...which is 20 days dont they only have 14 days from the time they mail it out till the court date or am I misunderstanding that?

IRLJ 2.6(a) is what you're looking for.
(1) Hearing cannot be scheduled within 14 days or more than 120 days than the notice of hearing is sent.
(i) Prehearing conferences. Most likely Inapplicable in your case.
(ii) More prehearing conferences. Same as above.
(2)NOH must be mailed by the 21st day of receipt of a request for hearing.
(3) Court may schedule a hearing at the same time for two different violations.
(4) Charges may be dismissed upon a showing of prejudice if the court does not comply with IRLJ 2.6(a)(2).

Does that help?

Brendan

[BRUINSCOUT00001]

It cleared it up for me...Thanks

[BRUINSCOUT00001]

OK...so I had court Today....I motioned to dismiss pursuit to IRLJ 2.1b4 the trooper did not denote the subsection of the RCW I allegedly violated...no luck the judge said that it didn't matter the officer stated that I was speeding over the legal limit.

So Next I asked him to take a judicial note of the Trooper manual as a public records document...he accepted...I then stated that the officer did not state that he performed the Automatic Circuit test recommended by the manufacturer of the SMD. and It effects the reliability of the SMD. I was then informed by the Judge that nowhere in the law does it say that he has to perform that test, and that it is stated in his sworn statement that the officer performed the necessary test to ensure it was functioning properly. I brought up the lack of serial numbers of the tuning forks used, and lack of a date of when the SMD was actually tested....he then told me that nothing I was presenting was going to win me the day....He smiled and told me to "there is a fault in there and that I was getting close though... If you want you can sit down and try and find it and I will call you back up later in the proceedings"....Which I took....after about 20 mins he calls me back up and asks me if I found it? I said I thought I had, and began to state that the Trooper failed to state that the radar base speed reading was consistent with the reading on my patrol vehicles certified speedometer..He shook his head and said "nope not it" ....well after some verrrrry slight coaching from the Judge I mentioned that the radar unit produced a read-out which lasted approximately 2-3 seconds....The judge smiled and said "the reading has to last more than 3 seconds..Case dismissed!"

I gathered my papers with my very shaky hands and walked out of the court room...Thank you to all who gave info and help me plan a defense....You are all great people!!!
I was curious if anyone has heard of that 3 second read-out before....anyone know where the Judge got that ruling from?

[blewis]

Nope -- first time for me. It seems kinda funny that the officer would even MENTION such a thing. Why?

But, it sounds like you had a judge in a good mood. Congratulations.

Barry

[BrendanjKeegan]

That is interesting. I haven't seen anywhere that the reading has to last more than 3 seconds.

Do you mind, maybe going back after court after a couple of days and asking him where he received that idea? I would really like to see the case law or rule for that.

I understand if you don't, I was just thinking it may help someone else in their case so if you could find a fact on it that may help others significantly.

Brendan