Speeding Ticket on I-5 in Washington

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

Hi, all,

First post on the hope Barry and etc can help me with some pointers.

On 7/3, I was traveling SB on I-5 near milepost 197(near Tulalip casino). I merged onto I-5 from ramp 202. I was following traffic and driving in the left lane. I was pulled over a WSP. He was in front of me to the right(middle lane)and must have used rear antenna in moving mode. I was behind him until the speed dropped to like 55 MPH and I said heck I can't stay this slow just because there is a cop in front of me. So I passed him when driving about 57 mph and he pulled behind me immediately and lit me up.

He told me he used radar and got a 72 mph on me. however, the first read was a ghost reading(not sure what that means) and he did a second read which was good. There is no way I was going 72 mph between 202 ramp and milepost 197. The traffic was very busy due to the shopping crowd coming back from Seattle premium outlets and I was simply following the traffic flow on the left lane. There was a beige Jeep right in front of me.

I have sent in my ticket requesting contest hearing and the discovery request provided by Barry. I will post discovery material when I receive it. Meanwhile, I have some general questions:

1. Should I subpoena the citing officer?
2. What's WSP's regulation regarding radar calibration? is it every 2 years? What about daily checking of the radar?
3. Since the trooper using the moving mode and rear antenna, must he also verify the radar patrol speed against his speedometer and his speedometer must be calibrated? How often should the speedometer be calibrated? 12 months?
4. Has anyone used RCW 46.61.470 the quarter mile rule to suppress the radar evidence?

Any other pointers? TIA.

Quote:

---

Quoting carrix_fool

---

1. Should I subpoena the citing officer?

---

Probably not. I've never seen ANYONE win when the officer shows up. Now, if the officer does NOT show up, you've got a relatively sure dismissal.

Quote:

---

Quoting carrix_fool

---

2. What's WSP's regulation regarding radar calibration? is it every 2 years? What about daily checking of the radar?

---

There are no "regulations" concerning radar calibration. I do believe, however, that WSP "policy" calls for calibration every two years.

Quote:

---

Quoting carrix_fool

---

3. Since the trooper using the moving mode and rear antenna, must he also verify the radar patrol speed against his speedometer and his speedometer must be calibrated? How often should the speedometer be calibrated? 12 months?

---

That depends on the radar that was used. Some actually have an "input" from the vehicle's speedometer -- in which case the comparison is moot.

Quote:

---

Quoting carrix_fool

---

4. Has anyone used RCW 46.61.470 the quarter mile rule to suppress the radar evidence?

---

RCW 46.61.470 SPECIFICALLY refers to methods "using the lapsed time during which such vehicle travels between such limits, and such limits shall not be closer than one-fourth mile." Since radar measures "frequency shift" and does NOT employ "lapsed time" in it's measurement, it does NOT constitute a "speed trap" within the meaning of the law. There's even a Supreme Court case from 1956 which upholds that view.

I'm afraid you'll have to wait until you receive your discovery materials to determine if you've got any kind of a solid defense.

Barry

Thanks, Barry.

Hi, Barry & other gururs,

Here are my NOI and the infraction notice:

http://i951.photobucket.com/albums/a...x_fool/noi.jpg
http://i951.photobucket.com/albums/a...infraction.jpg

! point I can think of right away is 1. lack of foundation since the NOI didn't mention if and when teh speedometer was calibrated.

The troop was in lane 2 and I was in lane 3. It was very busy that date and there are cars immediately behind him so how could he get a lock on me in a different lane. My understanding is you can't adjust the rear antenna while moving, correct?

motion to surpress this affidavit because he has not attested to the calibration or accuracy of his speedomoter....when granted, ask for a dismissal for lack of evidence. This has been a great argument int he past...

Thanks, colemac. I will definitely do that.

In addition, I noticed the trooper only said "appeared to be traveling in excess of the 60 mph limit". he didn't give a true estimate and I called WSP and they said he should have given a number like 70 mph. Since he didn't provide a good visual estimate, then he doesn't have foundation to say later that "This reading matched my visual estimate of the vehicle's speed". For all I know, his initial visual estimate could be 61 mph or 81 mph, which would not be consistent with the radar reading of 72. Do you all agree?

Another point, I talked to WSP and was told this trooper has computers in the patrol car and files report right after the citation and the electronic signature is captured then. Then after teh shift, they go back to the office and hook up to mainframe and upload case report to the court. IN that case, the citing officer also lacks foundation when he said "At the beginning and the end of my shift, I performed a full...". His shift has not ended yet and he can't testify to something that happens in the future(end of his shift). Do you agree?

Thanks again.

Quote:

---

Quoting colemac65

---

motion to surpress this affidavit because he has not attested to the calibration or accuracy of his speedomoter....when granted, ask for a dismissal for lack of evidence. This has been a great argument int he past...

---

Quote:

---

Quoting carrix_fool

---

In addition, I noticed the trooper only said "appeared to be traveling in excess of the 60 mph limit". he didn't give a true estimate and I called WSP and they said he should have given a number like 70 mph. Since he didn't provide a good visual estimate, then he doesn't have foundation to say later that "This reading matched my visual estimate of the vehicle's speed". For all I know, his initial visual estimate could be 61 mph or 81 mph, which would not be consistent with the radar reading of 72. Do you all agree?

---

Eh, could be a moot point. A visual estimate is simply that: AN ESTIMATE and really has no place in a court of law. Sure, officers are trained to estimate speeds, but I have never seen a WA State court judge uphold a speeding ticket because of an ESTIMATE.

In fact, what is that particular officer's margin of error? Well, it's unreported, so we don't know.

I would advise against this argument.

Quote:

---

Quoting carrix_fool

---

Another point, I talked to WSP and was told this trooper has computers in the patrol car and files report right after the citation and the electronic signature is captured then. Then after teh shift, they go back to the office and hook up to mainframe and upload case report to the court. IN that case, the citing officer also lacks foundation when he said "At the beginning and the end of my shift, I performed a full...". His shift has not ended yet and he can't testify to something that happens in the future(end of his shift). Do you agree?

---

How are you going to prove that he didn't check it at the end of his shift. As far as we all know, he did because he testifies to doing so and has certified under penalty of perjury. It's your word against his, and guess who's wording will hold up in court...

Quote:

---

Quoting colemac65

---

motion to surpress this affidavit because he has not attested to the calibration or accuracy of his speedomoter....when granted, ask for a dismissal for lack of evidence. This has been a great argument int he past...

---

I agree, wholeheartedly. If you want to add some more "punch" to this, you can go to the court and check to see if the court has the speedometer cert for this particular patrol unit on file- OH WAIT:

He doesn't even state what patrol unit he was in! Hm... Fishy fishy...

Motion like so:
"Your honor, the officer has failed to designate what number patrol car he was in at the time he achieved the radar reading on my vehicle. Therefore, it is impossible for him to prove that his speedometer was indeed calibrated. I move to dismiss all of the evidence as the speedometer was not calibrated."

It's a guaranteed win.

Oh, and I'd also like to add this: How can you be "100% certain that the radar reading was obtained on the defendant's vehicle" when you cannot see a radio wave's (radar) beam? Hmm... And furthermore... one that is behind you. Sound's a bit unsafe. And even more, visually estimating a car's speed that is behind you while you, yourself, are driving...

Sounds like officer Sloan needs to get his priorities straight: Safety OVER Citation.

Brendan

Hi, Brendan,

Thanks for the great points.

1. Visual estimate: My point is that for him to say that the radar reading matches with his estimate, he must provide a reasonable range. if the radar read 72 mph, then a visual estimate of 62 mph or 82 mph can be said to match that reading.

2. Checking at the end of his shift: He electronically signed the affidavit right after the citation during his shift. He used past tense "I performed". So my point is he couldn't testify that he ACTUALLY performed the check at the end of the shift when that time has not come.

I do like your suggestion about the patrol car unit number. Thanks again!

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Eh, could be a moot point. A visual estimate is simply that: AN ESTIMATE and really has no place in a court of law. Sure, officers are trained to estimate speeds, but I have never seen a WA State court judge uphold a speeding ticket because of an ESTIMATE.

In fact, what is that particular officer's margin of error? Well, it's unreported, so we don't know.

I would advise against this argument.



How are you going to prove that he didn't check it at the end of his shift. As far as we all know, he did because he testifies to doing so and has certified under penalty of perjury. It's your word against his, and guess who's wording will hold up in court...



I agree, wholeheartedly. If you want to add some more "punch" to this, you can go to the court and check to see if the court has the speedometer cert for this particular patrol unit on file- OH WAIT:

He doesn't even state what patrol unit he was in! Hm... Fishy fishy...

Motion like so:
"Your honor, the officer has failed to designate what number patrol car he was in at the time he achieved the radar reading on my vehicle. Therefore, it is impossible for him to prove that his speedometer was indeed calibrated. I move to dismiss all of the evidence as the speedometer was not calibrated."

It's a guaranteed win.

Oh, and I'd also like to add this: How can you be "100% certain that the radar reading was obtained on the defendant's vehicle" when you cannot see a radio wave's (radar) beam? Hmm... And furthermore... one that is behind you. Sound's a bit unsafe. And even more, visually estimating a car's speed that is behind you while you, yourself, are driving...

Sounds like officer Sloan needs to get his priorities straight: Safety OVER Citation.

Brendan

---

Quote:

---

Quoting carrix_fool

---

2. Checking at the end of his shift: He electronically signed the affidavit right after the citation during his shift. He used past tense "I performed". So my point is he couldn't testify that he ACTUALLY performed the check at the end of the shift when that time has not come.

---

Where is the time stamp on when he signed it?