Discovery Materials Received - Opinions on My Best Approach

Speeding ticket in Clark County, Washington

WSP Trooper standing next to his motorcycle, shooting hand-held laser from the center median. I was southbound on the inside lane in moderate - heavy traffic. The freeway curves slightly to the right at MP27 (SR14 exit). As I approached the curve I saw the trooper wave me into the center median. The trooper was about 50' south beyond the apex of the curve. I stopped about 50' beyond him.

I requested a contested hearing.

I got my discovery materials yesterday.

NOI was filed (4/2/10) the day after it was issued (4/1/10).

SMD (Lidar) was calibrated on 3/18/10 by Steen R Nicholson. {Kustom Signals Pro-Laser III PL20623}

WSP affidavit (fill-in-the-blanks) salient points;
Laser SMD L-1313
S/B I-205 @ MP27 on 040110 @ 1035
"at a speed which appeared to be in excess of the 60 mph posted speed limit. The defendant's speed as visually estimated at 70+ mph. The defendants vehicle was (X) approaching in lane (#3). The LASER-SMD showed a visual display of 71 mph at a distance of 906 feet. The target vehicle was in the direct line of sight of the SMD.
.
.
.
.
.
The LASER-SMD #L-1313 was used stationary. The unit was checked at the beginning and end of the Trooper's shift and found to be in proper working order. The proper working order of the unit was checked by internal and external tests. three function checks were completed including distance, sight alignment, and self check. The Trooper operating the LASER-SMD has recieved instruction and is a qualified operator of the unit."
.
.
.
The officer signed and dated the front of the affidavit which references my NOI, but the back side(?) of my photocopy is completely blank except for the FILED date and time stamp. There is no other info, report, or notes as to traffic, weather, street, or light conditions. I'll try to post scans from a different location later.

I believe I was not the car he tagged due to his location (just beyond the apex of the curve to the right) and the distance at which he allegedly got his reading (71 mph @ 906 ft). He would have to shoot across at least one and probably two lanes all of which had traffic.

WOW! "The trooper"? Who was that? And why did this officer sign a form that talks about what "the trooper" did?

Also, there are two different references to the SMD ("PL20623" and L-1313). Is one the "tag" number and the other the "serial number"? Is there a document (possibly the IRLJ 6.6 certification at the courthouse) that ties those two together?

Yes, please scan and post the actual documents.

"The Trooper operating the LASER-SMD has recieved instruction and is a qualified operator of the unit." Hmmmmm. I smell a "hearsay" objection coming....

Barry

Yes the two SMD numbers are from the document they sent me. They reference the same device calibrated by SRN on 3/18/10.

The affidavit reads as follows;

"Trooper Olson was operating LASER SMD (speed monitoring device) L-1313.

The Trooper observed the defendant's vehicle (N/B) (S/B) circled (E/B) (W/B)

On INTERSTATE 205"

It was all pre-printed, except for the bolded stuff which was filled in, as was his signature and the date.

Looking at the Google map and satellite pictures (kind of) proves my point about him having to shoot across 3 lanes of traffic to single me out in the center lane over 900 feet away. Even fudging his location it seems incredible to me that anyone with a handheld device could get an accurate sighting. I think he was just waving people over into the center median because he could. before I departed the scene he had waved another car over which stopped in front of me about 25 yards.

That's because you don't understand the technology. A laser SMD takes only 1/3 of a second to "clock" you. That's NOT very long -- about the time it takes to "double-click" a mouse. I don't think your argument will get you ANYWHERE -- besides, if another car crossed between you and the laser during that 300 milliseconds, the unit would have indicated that and NOT shown a speed or distance.

As I said, please scan the documents. I won't waste any more of my time responding to "pieces" of the evidence.

Barry

I do understand the technology. I also understand that the tech can be misused. I know it will boil down to my word against the affidavit.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...scan0001-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...m/scan0002.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...m/scan0003.jpg

The trooper was not in the "direct line of sight" until I was a hundred feet from him.
How can one estimate the speed of an oncoming vehicle that is over a thousand feet away, coming around a bend with traffic in front and beside?
The trooper used that estimate as the basis for probable cause then allegedly lasered me. He was just waving cars over from the center median and handing out tickets.

Things I see as possible points of contention;
1) I did a visual check and my car at 906 feet is about 1/4 of the width of my thumb held at arms length.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_obXlVnUFgqs/TB...0/IMG_0548.JPG

2) At a speed of 70 MPH it would take 8.8 seconds to travel 906 feet. (102.6 FPS). I was moving at a speed of 60 MPH or 88 FPS. It takes 10.3 seconds to travel 906 feet.

3) The curve of the freeway, the traffic to my right and in front of me prevented the trooper from direct line of sight until I was within 200 feet of his position.

4) The boiler plate lines in the affidavit "(At) a speed which appeared to be in excess of the 60 mph posted speed limit. The defendant's speed (w)as visually estimated at 70+ mph." Also "The target vehicle was in the direct line of sight of the SMD."

These statements do not make sense considering my distance from his position and the amount of time it takes to observe, estimate, and then actually aim the LIDAR unit. I contend the trooper was "just casting a net" and using his SMD to back his story, knowing full well most victims would just roll over and pay the fine.

900 feet IS NOT that far! A majority of my LIDAR citations are 1500' - 1800'. The farthest was a smidge over 3300'.

US Marines are taught how to shoot a man sized target at 500 METERS (1640ish feet) with an iron sight. Put a car in front of that man sized target and even an Air Force officer can shoot it.

Attacking the device I think will get you no where.

Speed estimation is an aquired trade. If you spend 8-12 hours a day doing ANYTHING, you get pretty good at ANYTHING. Your car rapidly passing slower traffic is one clue The Trooper may have seen.

Last point is sure, tech can be misused. I guess it will come down to your word vs. The Trooper's word. Your argument of, "...prevented the trooper from direct line of sight until I was within 200 fet of his position." only shows YOU saw the trooper when YOU were 200 feet away from him. You were not standing where he was so you have no idea what he saw.

Quote:

---

Quoting sniper

---

900 feet IS NOT that far! A majority of my LIDAR citations are 1500' - 1800'. The farthest was a smidge over 3300'.

US Marines are taught how to shoot a man sized target at 500 METERS (1640ish feet) with an iron sight. Put a car in front of that man sized target and even an Air Force officer can shoot it.

Attacking the device I think will get you no where.

Speed estimation is an aquired trade. If you spend 8-12 hours a day doing ANYTHING, you get pretty good at ANYTHING. Your car rapidly passing slower traffic is one clue The Trooper may have seen.

Last point is sure, tech can be misused. I guess it will come down to your word vs. The Trooper's word. Your argument of, "...prevented the trooper from direct line of sight until I was within 200 fet of his position." only shows YOU saw the trooper when YOU were 200 feet away from him. You were not standing where he was so you have no idea what he saw.

---

I'm not planning to attack the device, only the fashion in which it was used. My car was NOT rapidly passing anyone it was being passed by someone in the #2 lane. I am quite positive I was only traveling at 63 MPH. Does the trooper actually possess the skills that allow him to 'accurately' estimate a 10MPH speed differential at one thousand feet or more?
Can you hit a moving target at 1000' with your sidearm? That would be analogous I think.
True that I have no idea what he actually saw but based on his sworn statement, the facts really don't add up to a slam dunk either way...somehow I will need to sway the judge with enough reasonable doubt and a preponderance of evidence. I suppose it all boils down to whether I should subpoena the trooper and ask these questions?

Good argument with the sidearm. :) Not taking sides or anything- if it was a Prolite+ it would be EXTREMELY hard to take that measurement at the distance. Granted, the manual says: "The Pro-Lite+ Lidar uses the HUD technology for range applications up to 2,000 ft." I highly doubt that anyone could use something that small, with a weight of 1.2 lbs, and "clock" someone 900 feet away.

In fact, the prolite+ wouldn't even be a sidearm. That's more like saying, "can you hit a moving target at 900' with a blow gun?"

But it might not even be the prolite+. I'm just using that model for the sake of argument.

Anyway, at the end of the day, the case is still pretty weak. I'll have a look in a couple of hours when I have more time.

Brendan

Oh. And for the record: SMD is not Speed Monitoring Device. It's Speed MEASURING Device. When was the last time Trooper Olson received his training... he would have remembered what SMD stands for.

I wonder if I should consider a subpoena for the trooper? Perhaps question his ability to track a moving object at 1000 feet, on a curve, with other traffic impeding his view?

Nope. Don't subpoena, I guarantee you'll lose.

If I do not subpoena the trooper, then my only real hope is to try to convince the judge that the trooper's sworn statement is incorrect or incomplete as far as the facts.

I believe he mistakenly singled me out of a group of vehicles coming toward him, traveling at 60-70 MPH, from almost a quarter mile away, around a slight bend.

If I do subpoena and he shows up for court I will be able to question his testimony from direct recollection and not just his sworn statement.

I'm going to need some photos and diagrams to do this either way.

Don't subpoena. He will most likely change his testimony, and then you'll really be screwed. There's no way you'll be able to convince the judge that the trooper's statement is incorrect.

Try and scan the documents, we might find some more inconsistencies. Did you go and find the certification for design and construction on file with the court? The laser might not even be calibrated to WA standard.

However, if you feel you can beat this by subpoenaing, then you better be prepared to be an expert on the Prolaser III and you better ask him a lot of good questions. Questions about his hand movement, his calibration, whether or not he shot through an open window. Preparing for a witness will prove to be one of the HARDEST things you EVER do. Even lawyers hate prepping for witnesses. Which is why the judge, in the end, will side with the prosecution.

At the end of the day, however, your arguments are limited. You're in a district court, so you can try your best to say "the statute doesn't exist" or the subsection argument, but it looks to me like an uphill battle.

I hate to be a negative nancy, but this is one tough case.

Brendan

you have a document that is part of the notice of infraction that is stamped "filed 04/20/2010) although when i pulled this case number up via washington courts, it says that it was filed on the 1st.

i would make this one of my arguments.....

your honor, this notice of infraction stated it was filed on 04/20/10 and show it to the judge where it says FILED and motion to dismiss under irlj 2.2d
I would think you have basis for something here and would be surprised if the judge denied...basically, you cant factually determine the filing date! was it the 1st or the 20th?

Quote:

---

Quoting colemac65

---

you have a document that is part of the notice of infraction that is stamped "filed 04/20/2010) although when i pulled this case number up via washington courts, it says that it was filed on the 1st.

i would make this one of my arguments.....

your honor, this notice of infraction stated it was filed on 04/20/10 and show it to the judge where it says FILED and motion to dismiss under irlj 2.2d
I would think you have basis for something here and would be surprised if the judge denied...basically, you cant factually determine the filing date! was it the 1st or the 20th?

---

Thanks colemac, the ticket was stamped as filed on the 2nd of April, one day after I received it. Sorry about the document angle. I think that'll be a dead end.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Don't subpoena. He will most likely change his testimony, and then you'll really be screwed. There's no way you'll be able to convince the judge that the trooper's statement is incorrect.

Try and scan the documents, we might find some more inconsistencies. Did you go and find the certification for design and construction on file with the court? The laser might not even be calibrated to WA standard.

However, if you feel you can beat this by subpoenaing, then you better be prepared to be an expert on the Prolaser III and you better ask him a lot of good questions. Questions about his hand movement, his calibration, whether or not he shot through an open window. Preparing for a witness will prove to be one of the HARDEST things you EVER do. Even lawyers hate prepping for witnesses. Which is why the judge, in the end, will side with the prosecution.

At the end of the day, however, your arguments are limited. You're in a district court, so you can try your best to say "the statute doesn't exist" or the subsection argument, but it looks to me like an uphill battle.

I hate to be a negative nancy, but this is one tough case.

Brendan

---

I'm having some trouble scanning the docs but the stuff about the LIDAR cals and whatnot appear to be in order. It was calibrated on 3/18/10 by Steen R Nicholson whose initials appear on the document listing the correct instrument number L-1313 and serial number PL-XXXXX.

The trooper was standing next to his motorcycle using the laser to tag vehicles.

You probably haven't seen Cole's bumper sticker: "Dyslexics of the World -- Untie".

LOL!

Barry

I have screenshots that I can post (from Google maps) of the area in question. I am tempted toward taking photos of my own this weekend

You do need to attack the laser device...it says it was calibrated; it does not say that it was calibrated per NHSTA guidelines. So the calibration means nothing. Also, the officer's speed estimation is BS .. their training is not sufficient ... did you get the certificate of calibration & compare the testing to the required testing of the NHSTA requirements? You need to argue the data that the LIDAR unit spews out or you lost. You should not testify , at least not until you ask for a summary judgment after the prosecutions rests. If you just want to go into court & give testimony to your speed w/o attacking the lidar reading's accuracy you will surely lose. The tests the officer did is not sufficient - you should learn these tests and what they mean ... Kustom calibration's are generally faulty, not meeting up to the NHSTA requirements

I prevailed today and walked away. Trooper did not fill in enough details on his sworn statement as to traffic conditions.

Cool.

So how does that work? Did the Judge do that on his own , or did you or your attorney point out the missing details ?

I'll be contesting a speeding ticket soon....just curious how things work.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dizzyhawk

---

Cool.

So how does that work? Did the Judge do that on his own , or did you or your attorney point out the missing details ?

I'll be contesting a speeding ticket soon....just curious how things work.

---

No prosecutor or trooper. The judge asked me how I wanted to proceed. I stated that I did not commit the infraction. The judge asked me to continue. I stated that the officer's sworn affidavit contained no information on traffic conditions, weather, or the exact location of the trooper when he observed me. I also stated that it was unlikely that the trooper was able to see around a curve, over a small rise, and through all the other traffic between my car and his position in the center median. The judge said he did not believe that my speedometer or cruise control setting was accurate but the lack of detail in the trooper's sworn affidavit was enough to sway his decision to my favor.