Montana Speeding Ticket

OK boys and girls... here are the facts... RADAR TICKET

Deputy... we'll just call him "Barney" stops me for 60/45 zone. It is a
"special speed zone" as it is an area coming into town from the sticks!

Barney is a cocky, young and arrogant and goes through the normal questions....Do you know why I stopped you? Do you know the speed limits etc. Here is the thing....

1. He wrote me for 60 in a 45 zone. Duh... Barney...the zone is 50!
2. He believes the deceleration zone goes from 60 to 55 to 45. Ain't so! 60/50/40.
3. Location of violation... " MM .5 Hwy ?? (I'll leave it blank, Barney might be lurking) My thought is to screw with him if he tries to call it mile marker .5 and object as lacking foundation...make them work for it.
4. Radar unit number box... BLANK!!!!
5. He doesn't give the complete section violated. He for got the sub-section.

Here is what I do... I plead NOT GUILTY and ask for a bench trial... Pending.
I submit a motion for discovery... Standard stuff. Give me all you got... BUT... I ask for more. Including video, audio recordings, notes, logs, writings dealing with my stop, etc.

I get a call from the County Attorney who tells me he got my discovery request... and tells me none of it exists... or "frankly, the rest isn't material to the case". (Doesn't a judge make that call?)

A couple days later, I get a copy of a report in the mail. Barney, I come to find, is not a very good report writer. He has us miles from the actual location of arrest, he has us going in different directions and he still has not caught on his posted speed in wrong.

So, to the people in the gallery, I ask for your opinion(s).

With no radar unit listed on the cite or report, how can the case stand up to the requirements of Honeycutt, Tomanelli, Gerdes and Perlman?

Additionally, there is a state law MCA 61-8-701 that states the complaint or notice to appear shall include the alleged speed of the vehicle and the speed of the zone violated. Since Barney only got one of the two requirements, do you think I can get a dismissal for violation of procedural due process?

Oh.. and the County Attorney said the only thing they plan on using in court is the cite and the report.

Thanks for any comments.

The DA is right to say that it's not "material to the case." This means that the prosecution doesn't intend on using anything. However, if the attorney presents something other than the citation or the report, then object and explain that the DA already called and said that he wouldn't use anything else at trial. At the very least you can get a continuance.

Honeycutt, Tomanelli, Gerdes and Perlman? Those may apply in these ways, but you'd have to do research in Montana Case Law to find where Montana courts adopted these facts...

Honeycutt is KY case law, but a lot of states agree. Basically, Honeycutt set the bar for the admissibility of Radar evidence. Now, All states require that "(1) [there is] expert testimony of the scientific validity of the principles of radar speed detection or that radar is capable of accurately measuring speed of a motor vehicle; (2) the accuracy of the particular instrument used in [the] case [is] proved; and (3) the policeman [is] shown to be qualified to properly operate and interpret the instrument." (Honeycutt v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 408 S.W.2d 421)

Tomanelli is Connecticutt, but again, every state agrees. Tomanelli basically lays down the law and states that the use of tuning forks is a reliable external test, but the admissibility of the tuning forks and their accuracy themselves may also be questioned.

Gerdes is Minnesota's own reinforcement of both Tomanelli and Honeycutt combined. So basically you've got this: 1.) Operator must have adequate training and experience in radar operation,
2.) Testify how radar set up and conditions it was used,
3.) Insure a minimum of distortion from external interference as noise, neon lights, high tension power lines, high power radio stations, etc.,
4.) Test radar accuracy with a tuning fork, or actual test run using another vehicle with a calibrated speedometer.

Perlman is New York's way of stating that an external tuning fork test must be done. Basically, all you need to understand is Gerdes, as most states adopt that opinion.

Did you get a copy of the report? If so, post that up along with the citation. We'll pick it apart, or at least do our best to do so.

Brendan

Brendan ~ Thank you for the lengthy response.

Here is what I don't understand. If the officer keeps a daily log, a radar log or any other writing in which he wrote something about my case, why should it not be relevant? Shouldn't I be make that determination of what is relevant or not. I'm not asking to look in the officers medicine cabinet. All requests were legit as all officers keep notes, logs and record of their daily activities. If the officer documented (or didn't document) his daily test of the radar on some writing; log, notebook etc, It should be discoverable... I think.

I've done numerous searches using many websites and searched the Montana Appellate Court for a connection between Honeycutt, Tomanelli, Gerdes and Perlman; but I can't find anything that shows Montana has adopted any of the provisions. I did find Billings v Skurdal 730 P .2d 371, 224 Mont.84 (Mont. 11/18/1986) which eluded to the officer testifying the radar was used correctly and was operating on the night in question. Since the defendant failed to present any evidence that challenged the validity of the use of radar, the court affirmed.

Additionally, MCA 61-8-702 states: The speed of any motor vehicle may be measured by the use of radio microwaves or other electrical device. The results of such measurements shall be accepted as evidence of the speed of such motor vehicle in any court or legal proceedings where the speed of the motor vehicle is at issue.

Since the US Constitution has a Supremacy Clause, does that mean ANY case law is not considered...or does the State still have to abide by the above listed radar case law?

I don't have the ability to post the ticket or report...nor do I feel comfortable doing so... with that said, I can provide you with a glimpse of some of the areas which I believe I can attack under cross.

1. No record of any radar unit number on the citation or the report.
2. No record of what patrol unit he was driving.
3. No indication he tested the radar before or after the arrest.
4. Officer did not mention the High Voltage relay station at the exact location of the alleged violation"
5. No indication of a speed or traffic study.

6. Complete MCA section 61-8-309 did not include the subsection (1) (a). What is interesting about this is; the Montana Supreme Court Bond Schedule only lists a fine for 61-8-309 (1)...so how does a court fine you on an guilty verdict for which no bond schedule exists?

7. Speed limit is wrong on both the Cite and the report) He has listed 45 MPH when in actuality it is 50 MPH


His initial paragraph indicates (I've changed the actual locations)

" While on routine patrol I observed a Black sedan near Osborn Way in Montanatown. I visually observed the vehicle exceeding the posted speed limit of 45 mph, heading westbound on Highway 1000. I then radared the vehicle at 60 mph. (Radared.. is that a word :) )

So, Osborn Way is 3 miles away from where I was driving..and on a different stretch of roadway off of another main route. My thought is to get him to testify to these "facts" under cross and then ask him if it is even possible to see Highway 1000 from Osborn Way. If he says no... then his testimony is questionable...I would think. What I suspect is he has a boilerplate arrest report on his laptop and tweeks the facts as he needs to so he can print out the report. In this case... Barny was in a hurry to fill in the blanks and forgot to change all the facts in his report. The fact he filed a false police report in connection with this case is something I must consider bringing up!

If I can show to the Court Barny had an imaginary radar (because he didn't list the radar unit on is cite or report ( Leaving no traceable standard) and the fact a radar can't be used through buildings, trees and mountains etc from miles and miles away... It seems to me I might sway the 49 % to 51 % in my favor.

And lastly, I'm still interested in MCA 61-8-701 "In every charge of a violation of any speed regulation in this chapter the complaint, and also the summons or notice to appear shall specify the speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven, also the speed applicable within the district or at the location."

Since he put me at 45 when the zone is actually 50, he failed to charge me correctly.

I have my Omin hearing next week. More to follow then.

Thank again
Speedy!

I'll get a response to you within the next 12 hours. Let me do some research and I'll get back to you. Standby.

Sorry, took a little bit longer than I thought it would to do the research.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

Here is what I don't understand. If the officer keeps a daily log, a radar log or any other writing in which he wrote something about my case, why should it not be relevant? Shouldn't I be make that determination of what is relevant or not. I'm not asking to look in the officers medicine cabinet. All requests were legit as all officers keep notes, logs and record of their daily activities. If the officer documented (or didn't document) his daily test of the radar on some writing; log, notebook etc, It should be discoverable... I think.

---

There are a handful of states that aren't so picky about calibration and activity logs. Montana, I do believe, is like Washington in the sense that the officer doesn't need to log his calibration. He simply needs to testify that it was done before and after.

Which can be sticky. In your case, you don't want to have him fill in the blanks as to what he did with the SMD. You want him to testify to certain things, and you want to catch him testifying that he didn't do something. You're gonna want to phrase a question with no intent that the radar needed to be calibrated both before and after. A question like:
Officer X, please explain to the court how you ensured the accuracy of the SMD.

Not one with a yes or no question, like, "Officer X, did you do the external calibration both before and after the stop?"

That's where things get really hard. My advice: don't say anything upon the prosecution's examination of the witness (if there is an examination) until the prosecution has rested its case.

Which brings me to a question: do you know what type of radar you were hit with?

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

I've done numerous searches using many websites and searched the Montana Appellate Court for a connection between Honeycutt, Tomanelli, Gerdes and Perlman; but I can't find anything that shows Montana has adopted any of the provisions. I did find Billings v Skurdal 730 P .2d 371, 224 Mont.84 (Mont. 11/18/1986) which eluded to the officer testifying the radar was used correctly and was operating on the night in question. Since the defendant failed to present any evidence that challenged the validity of the use of radar, the court affirmed.

Additionally, MCA 61-8-702 states: The speed of any motor vehicle may be measured by the use of radio microwaves or other electrical device. The results of such measurements shall be accepted as evidence of the speed of such motor vehicle in any court or legal proceedings where the speed of the motor vehicle is at issue.

Since the US Constitution has a Supremacy Clause, does that mean ANY case law is not considered...or does the State still have to abide by the above listed radar case law?

---

I don't understand the question here... You're gonna want to challenge the radar gun. The case of Skurdal is somewhat irrelevant because you WILL be challenge the SMD. Skurdal did not.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

I don't have the ability to post the ticket or report...nor do I feel comfortable doing so... with that said, I can provide you with a glimpse of some of the areas which I believe I can attack under cross.

1. No record of any radar unit number on the citation or the report.

---

Not necessarily needed on the report, unless there is a line item for it. Does that make sense? However, even then, it may not matter. In WA, the officer need not put the radar unit number on the NOI.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

2. No record of what patrol unit he was driving.

---

Again, not needed, but certainly something to ask the hostile witness to confirm on cross-exam if you haven't already received that info.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

3. No indication he tested the radar before or after the arrest.

---

Are we still talking about the ticket, or are we now talking about a statement that he made. Because if we're talking about a statement, that's a perfect route for dismissal.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

4. Officer did not mention the High Voltage relay station at the exact location of the alleged violation"

---

Not necessarily important...

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

5. No indication of a speed or traffic study.

---

Under what statute does it require that there be a speed or traffic study?

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

6. Complete MCA section 61-8-309 did not include the subsection (1) (a). What is interesting about this is; the Montana Supreme Court Bond Schedule only lists a fine for 61-8-309 (1)...so how does a court fine you on an guilty verdict for which no bond schedule exists?

---

May work, but don't bet your life on it.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

7. Speed limit is wrong on both the Cite and the report) He has listed 45 MPH when in actuality it is 50 MPH

---

Yes, it is the wrong speed limit for that area... but even if it was 50 MPH, were you traveling above the speed limit?

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

" While on routine patrol I observed a Black sedan near Osborn Way in Montanatown. I visually observed the vehicle exceeding the posted speed limit of 45 mph, heading westbound on Highway 1000. I then radared the vehicle at 60 mph. (Radared.. is that a word :) )

So, Osborn Way is 3 miles away from where I was driving..and on a different stretch of roadway off of another main route. My thought is to get him to testify to these "facts" under cross and then ask him if it is even possible to see Highway 1000 from Osborn Way. If he says no... then his testimony is questionable...I would think. What I suspect is he has a boilerplate arrest report on his laptop and tweeks the facts as he needs to so he can print out the report. In this case... Barny was in a hurry to fill in the blanks and forgot to change all the facts in his report. The fact he filed a false police report in connection with this case is something I must consider bringing up!

---

That'll help, yes.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

If I can show to the Court Barny had an imaginary radar (because he didn't list the radar unit on is cite or report ( Leaving no traceable standard) and the fact a radar can't be used through buildings, trees and mountains etc from miles and miles away... It seems to me I might sway the 49 % to 51 % in my favor.

---

Yes, but make sure to check what I said earlier.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

And lastly, I'm still interested in MCA 61-8-701 "In every charge of a violation of any speed regulation in this chapter the complaint, and also the summons or notice to appear shall specify the speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven, also the speed applicable within the district or at the location."

Since he put me at 45 when the zone is actually 50, he failed to charge me correctly.

---

You can certainly make a pre-trial motion for dismissal on it, however, don't be surprised if it doesn't go through.

With all of that answered, somewhat, what did you get in your discovered materials?

Brendan

Wow Brendan.. I can't thank you enough for your time... When it all over, I'll send you some good Montana Beer!

I'll try to answer your questions, It won't be as pretty as your response though! :)

I don't know what make the radar is...

My point about the lacking of the radar unit number is this. There is a space on the ticket for the radar unit number. If Barney comes to court and says he can't tell me what radar unit he used, or what patrol unit it was installed in... then he can't provide any calibration logs or the calibration certificates for the tuning forks. All he can say is he used 'a radar" unit. There should be some paper-trail to indicate that Radar unit number XYZ was used by Barney on January 1, 2010 and here are the calibration records. There should be a "traceable standard". I use the example of a breathalyzer... If you tried to convict someone without a paper-trail and calibration trail... I don't think you'd get too far.

The statute I am alleged to have violated is:

"61-8-309. Establishment of special speed zones. (1) (a) If the commission determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that a speed limit set by 61-8-303 is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at an intersection, curve, or dangerous location or on a segment of a highway less than 50 miles in length under its jurisdiction, the commission may set a reasonable and safe special speed limit at that location."

I have a tough time even believing the statute is anything but an administrative section authorizing "special speed zones" In my mind it is very vague and convoluted.

The speed limit was/is 50... not 45. I guess I'm trying to hold the deputy to a higher standard. If he is not competent enough to fill in the blanks of a citation, write a complete and accurate report with the correct location and direction of travel, and be able to look up and see what the actual speed limit is... then maybe he is incompetent to run a SMD.

All I got for my discovery request was a copy of the report, which included a DMV print-out, A face page which includes my name and vehicle description and date and time of the incident and a 4 paragraph narrative... which is full of misinformation and outright fabrication.

The County Attorney has an open file policy and I will be viewing it before my trial. i have to make an appointment to go down and view it. They too have asked for ongoing discovery... I'm thinking of sending them a letter telling them I have an open file policy too... and they can come to my house to view it! :)

I know I've rehashed some of the same questions. I truly appreciate your time and I will keep you updated on my process.... as long as I'm not held in contempt!!!!

Thanks again!
Speedy

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

My point about the lacking of the radar unit number is this. There is a space on the ticket for the radar unit number. If Barney comes to court and says he can't tell me what radar unit he used, or what patrol unit it was installed in... then he can't provide any calibration logs or the calibration certificates for the tuning forks. All he can say is he used 'a radar" unit. There should be some paper-trail to indicate that Radar unit number XYZ was used by Barney on January 1, 2010 and here are the calibration records. There should be a "traceable standard". I use the example of a breathalyzer... If you tried to convict someone without a paper-trail and calibration trail... I don't think you'd get too far.

---

Indeed, you are correct. Does anything in his report say ANYTHING about a particular type of radar? Because, if not, you can motion for a dismissal as a pre-trial motion.

The biggest thing that annoys me here is the fact that they're hiding what type of radar gun was used.

Does Barny even say that he was trained to operate the unit.

Basically, he has said he has "radared" you, but has no foundation for the radar gun:
Was the operator trained and qualified in the use of radar technology?
Was the operator trained and qualified in the use of the particular unit?
Was his training to "state standard?"
How did he ensure the accuracy of the unit?

Internal calibration? Before and After? Within a reasonable amount of time?
External Calibration? Before and After? Within a reasonable amount of time?

How was the external calibration done?
Can the pros. prove that the calibration standard (i.e. Tuning forks or Separate Vehicle) were themselves calibrated?
Was the calibration standard certified by a reputable repair facility?

Basically, without all of that, the court cannot admit the radar evidence. Furthermore- you've got a huge fight that is easily won... see below.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

The statute I am alleged to have violated is:

"61-8-309. Establishment of special speed zones. (1) (a) If the commission determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that a speed limit set by 61-8-303 is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at an intersection, curve, or dangerous location or on a segment of a highway less than 50 miles in length under its jurisdiction, the commission may set a reasonable and safe special speed limit at that location."

I have a tough time even believing the statute is anything but an administrative section authorizing "special speed zones" In my mind it is very vague and convoluted.

---

Not at ALL! Use this one to your advantage. The referenced statute therein states the following: "If the commission determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation..."

So, in order for a defendant to be convicted of "speeding" under this statute, the prosecution first needs to specify that there was indeed an "engineering or traffic investigation."

Make another discovery request, or a Subpoena Duces Tecum, and have the court authorize it. Specifically request the "engineering or traffic investigation for XXX Road."

If the prosecution doesn't supply you with a copy, motion for dismissal. If the prosecution shows up to trail without it, motion for dismissal. Object to any continuance.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

The speed limit was/is 50... not 45. I guess I'm trying to hold the deputy to a higher standard. If he is not competent enough to fill in the blanks of a citation, write a complete and accurate report with the correct location and direction of travel, and be able to look up and see what the actual speed limit is... then maybe he is incompetent to run a SMD.

---

I wouldn't be surprised if he was...

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

All I got for my discovery request was a copy of the report, which included a DMV print-out, A face page which includes my name and vehicle description and date and time of the incident and a 4 paragraph narrative... which is full of misinformation and outright fabrication.

---

Is that all you asked for?

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

The County Attorney has an open file policy and I will be viewing it before my trial. i have to make an appointment to go down and view it. They too have asked for ongoing discovery... I'm thinking of sending them a letter telling them I have an open file policy too... and they can come to my house to view it! :)

---

I wish that my DA had that policy... WA is ridiculous when it comes to public records. What did they make an ongoing demand for?

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

I know I've rehashed some of the same questions. I truly appreciate your time and I will keep you updated on my process.... as long as I'm not held in contempt!!!!

---

As long as you don't disrupt the court's normal processes and run everything by them (or at least file it with the court), I don't think you will find the judge imposing sanctions. Might I add, be polite to the prosecutor in open court and be polite to the court.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

Wow Brendan.. I can't thank you enough for your time... When it all over, I'll send you some good Montana Beer!

---

Haha. It's all good. Hopefully the case will be dismissed without much more work!

Brendan

The only mention of the radar is on his report..." I then radared this vehicle at 60 MPH". That is it. Nothing else! Barny does not lay out his expertise, his training, testing of the equipment or anything.

My fear is if I ask for the Speed Survey, they might just get one. I have already got the survey by calling the DOT. I think I'd be better off asking for the State to produce it at trial... and then if they don't provide it, ask for a dismissal. Additionally, if they get a copy, they'll see the speed limit error... and they may amend the complaint to the proper speed limit. It's seems to be a double edged sword.

Re their discovery motion... they sent me a discovery request right after I sent mine to them. They are asking for: "All papers, documents, photographs and other tangible objects which the defendant will use at trial either as evidence or as a source of impeachment"

My Discovery request was on a court supplied form. It states: All evidence in the State's possession that may be used against me at trial be sent to me once it is received by the County Attorney's Office."

I added to the form the following:

Copy of the front and back of each page of the mulit-part citation form #OU812.

Any and all notes, writings, recordings or documents made by BARNEY, regarding the vehicle stop, detention, interview or interrogation and subsequent issuance of a traffic citation to defendant "speedy" on January 1, 2010.

Also: Any video recordings , including "dash cam" footage, digital recordings and audio recordings made by Barney related to the stop and detention of the defendant. I request any and all recordings include ten minutes before and ten minutes after the traffic stop."

Also: Daily activity logs, handwritten or computer generated for January 1, 2010. Any and all messages sent by or to Deputy Barney via computer or departmentally owned cellular telephone.

So... what I got was... the report.

I have my Omin hearing in the AM.

It seems to me that I'll have to hold my cards close to my vest and not say too much. I have written a motion for dismissal based on the failure to charge me correctly and alleging violation of due process via the Montana Constitution: Article II, Section 17. I'm going to keep it in my hip pocket as I don't want to show my hand to the State. Maybe they will stipulate they won't amend the complaint....: )

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

The only mention of the radar is on his report..." I then radared this vehicle at 60 MPH". That is it. Nothing else! Barny does not lay out his expertise, his training, testing of the equipment or anything.

---

HAHA! Cake. He said "this" vehicle. He never made reference to it being the defendant's vehicle. He never stated that "this" vehicle was yours. For all we know, "this" could mean "some random vehicle." Make a motion for dismissal at trial based on the fact that he never said who's vehicle was "radared."

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

My fear is if I ask for the Speed Survey, they might just get one. I have already got the survey by calling the DOT. I think I'd be better off asking for the State to produce it at trial... and then if they don't provide it, ask for a dismissal. Additionally, if they get a copy, they'll see the speed limit error... and they may amend the complaint to the proper speed limit. It's seems to be a double edged sword.

---

Excellent. That's exactly what you want to do. If you've already seen what it looks like, don't make a request to the DA for it. Let the DA figure it out... I am willing to place a bet that s/he won't notice that it's needed. They've got other stuff to work on (a dui case, a rape case, something more important).

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

Re their discovery motion... they sent me a discovery request right after I sent mine to them. They are asking for: "All papers, documents, photographs and other tangible objects which the defendant will use at trial either as evidence or as a source of impeachment"

My Discovery request was on a court supplied form. It states: All evidence in the State's possession that may be used against me at trial be sent to me once it is received by the County Attorney's Office."

I added to the form the following:

Copy of the front and back of each page of the mulit-part citation form #OU812.

Any and all notes, writings, recordings or documents made by BARNEY, regarding the vehicle stop, detention, interview or interrogation and subsequent issuance of a traffic citation to defendant "speedy" on January 1, 2010.

Also: Any video recordings , including "dash cam" footage, digital recordings and audio recordings made by Barney related to the stop and detention of the defendant. I request any and all recordings include ten minutes before and ten minutes after the traffic stop."

Also: Daily activity logs, handwritten or computer generated for January 1, 2010. Any and all messages sent by or to Deputy Barney via computer or departmentally owned cellular telephone.

So... what I got was... the report.

---

And this is when the DA called you and said "it's simply not material to the prosecution." Am I correct? Well, you now have covered your arse even if the prosecutor shows up with the Traffic Survey. Make a motion and explain to the court that you haven't seen that document, even when you already filed a discovery request and that you asked for "all evidence in the State's possession that may be used against me at trial."

Explain to the court that because you weren't able to see this investigation, you were unable to adequately prepare a defense.

The prosecutor will most likely then motion for a continuance.

Object to that continuance. Explain to the court that you came prepared to hear the people's case against you and came prepared for trial to defend yourself with the material that was provided to you via the discovery request. Explain that the prosecutor called you and said that "the other request's aren't material to the prosecution." Be sure to put in that the prosecutor knows (or should know) the statute that you were cited with and s/he should have came prepared for the trial. Last but not least, add that you believe a continuance could end up wasting more of not only your time, but also the court's time and that you simply think that the case should be dismissed for the lack of a foundation of evidence.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

I have my Omin hearing in the AM.

---

Best of luck.

Quote:

---

Quoting alpenglow

---

It seems to me that I'll have to hold my cards close to my vest and not say too much. I have written a motion for dismissal based on the failure to charge me correctly and alleging violation of due process via the Montana Constitution: Article II, Section 17. I'm going to keep it in my hip pocket as I don't want to show my hand to the State. Maybe they will stipulate they won't amend the complaint....: )

---

Can I see that motion? And no need to keep quiet about your motions, the prosecution will most likely think you're another random guy that knows little to nothing about the law and won't even ask to see your papers. If they do ask to see them, just tell the DA that he or she will find out when you enter them into the court record.

As always, I give you my best,

Brendan

Well... this was fun! Got to court for my Omni hearing. The Court didn't have a file and said since I asked for a Bench Trial, the Omni hearing did not have to take place. I asked for it to go forward.

The County Attorney was taken back and he jokingly admitted he had never seen a more hotly contested speeding ticket.

So, I asked to be heard on my discovery motion.
The judge ordered The C/A to give me all the info the C/A originally said was not relevant. I also asked for additional items such as the speedometer test on the patrol unit... and any and all documents showing which patrol unit the Barney was driving that day.... Then....

I gave them my motion to dismiss based on the fact they failed to file the complaint properly. The C/A just smiled and shook his head but the Judge accepted the motion and gave the C/A ten days to accept it. The C/A said in open court he wished the case would be a jury trial because it would be "entertaining and fun!" Not sure how to take that... but we left with a handshake and a smile...no wink thought!~

It was interesting to see the C/A had no idea what type of radar the County uses and if there were any records as to the calibration of the speedometer. The judge said the county uses "Python." radars. Hopefully by asking for those questions I didn't open up an avenue for them to find out the info. I still have in my pocket the C/A not having a traffic survey. They said they had produced all the evidence they were going to offer at trial.

So, ten days from now, I should know more. And after that.. the trial in July!

Court adjourned!
Speedy