Information Omitted from a Speeding Ticket

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

I received a ticket this morning for "65+ in a 60", on I-5 near the Edmonds (178) exit.


The officer stated that I was going 70mph in a 60, and promptly issued me a ticket. I figure contesting the ticket would be the ideal thing to do as I have nothing to lose right?

I've been reading a few other threads, and I will be following Barry's discovery guide - and I will be posting that information when I recieve it.

Just curious if anything stands out from the ticket, or if everything looks normal?
I've uploaded my ticket here : http://img12.imageshack.us/f/tickettb.jpg/

A few things that stuck out to me are,
*no subsection, although I don't know if it's considered a valid argument
*My vehicle description is completely wrong [2004 Chrysler Crossfire]
The officer was obviously in a hurry as he simply jumped out into the freeway, waved me over, told me I was going 70mph asked for my license then came back 5 minutes later with a ticket. It's pretty evident that the ticket was rushed, so I'm hoping he missed some important detail?
*Also what does the "L1 / 68" mean?
*Lastly, I was caught speeding near exit 177 (I-5 NB) - Looking at google maps, the county line between King and Snohomish seems to be on 244th St SW - also there seem to be 2 seperate exit 177 for both NB and SB.
http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/7798/82993683.jpg
The officer wrote on the ticket "Issaquah" which I'm guessing assumes that I was in King County when I got caught speeding. Yet, on the ticket he left the "county" blank, and simply wrote "I-5 177", and since there is an exit 177 in both Snohomish county and King county, did the officer cite it correctly?
Or is the 177 referring to Milepost 177 which is right on the county line - does it even matter?

Thank you everyone in advance,
This is going to be a fun journey!

Quote:

---

Quoting iXbrian

---

*no subsection, although I don't know if it's considered a valid argument

---

It can be. I've seen cases dismissed in Issaquah for this. Also something to point out: the officer did not differentiate between chapter, title, etc. (the real violation should say RCW 46.61.400(1or2or3) not RCW 4661400.)

Quote:

---

Quoting iXbrian

---

*My vehicle description is completely wrong [2004 Chrysler Crossfire]
The officer was obviously in a hurry as he simply jumped out into the freeway, waved me over, told me I was going 70mph asked for my license then came back 5 minutes later with a ticket. It's pretty evident that the ticket was rushed, so I'm hoping he missed some important detail?

---

Not really something that you can get the ticket dismissed with.

Quote:

---

Quoting iXbrian

---

*Also what does the "L1 / 68" mean?

---

It is most likely the tag number of the SMD that was used. For his own reference when he writes the report. (Yeah, they can be that stupid and just forget which SMD was used)

Quote:

---

Quoting iXbrian

---

*Lastly, I was caught speeding near exit 177 (I-5 NB) - Looking at google maps, the county line between King and Snohomish seems to be on 244th St SW - also there seem to be 2 seperate exit 177 for both NB and SB.
http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/7798/82993683.jpg
The officer wrote on the ticket "Issaquah" which I'm guessing assumes that I was in King County when I got caught speeding. Yet, on the ticket he left the "county" blank, and simply wrote "I-5 177", and since there is an exit 177 in both Snohomish county and King county, did the officer cite it correctly?
Or is the 177 referring to Milepost 177 which is right on the county line - does it even matter?

---

Well, 177 is the Mile post. But since it's the county line, yes, the court has jurisdiction over the matter. However, because the officer did not write the county, you can explain to the judge that there are two different Exit 177 and one is in Snohomish county, and because the officer did not signify which one it was in, then how can he or you know if he filed in the correct county? (Sorry about the run on sentence)

Brendan

Interesting information, Thank you for your quick reply.
Your reply t is enough motivation for me to fight the ticket, rather than simply pay up.
I guess the next step here is to check "contested" and file for request for discovery,
I will update this post when I recieve the information.

Once again, I appreciate the quick response.

The county line is, indeed, at 244th St SW (or NE 205th or Lake Ballinger Way -- whichever way you want to call it). But the ticket clearly says "MP 177" (or perhaps "171") -- NOT "Exit 177". Since there is only ONE MP 177, and it's in King County, I don't think your jurisdictional argument will go very far.

But, yes, submit your discovery request and let's take a look. If, as you indicated, the officer was rushed, there's a good chance he'll have forgotten something.

Oh, what's exactly is wrong with the vehicle description? The officer wrote "CHRY CROSS". Do you drive, perhaps, a Volkswagon Jetta? Or are you saying it's wrong because he did not include the YEAR? Or because he abbreviated?

Barry

I saw it as "04 aY Cross" I guess "Chry Cross" makes sense too.
If anything, it's just wishful thinking on my end

Just an update, I went to the courthouse in Redmond today to "serve" my discovery request, and I recieved the packet immediately.

I recieved the officers sworn statement which I have attached:
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/1548/discovery1.jpg
and a copy of the NOI
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/7170/discovery2q.jpg

Along with the state's response, which stated that "Speed measuring and/or weight scale certificates are available for inspection in the Courtroom. See IRLJ 6.6 (d). All other discovery is your responsibility to obtain from the proper agency".

At that point I went to the clerk and asked where I can find the certificates, and he seemed a little confused and told me that they are not available untill the trial date, inside the courtroom.
For some reason that doesn't seem right, as I would need that information to prepare my defense.
Is it because the officer was based out of the Issaquah courthouse, whereas I went to the Redmond courthouse -which explains the lack of access to the certificates? Would they be on file at the Issaquah (East Div) courthouse?
Even though IRLJ 6.6 (d) states that "The records will be available for inspection by the public. Copies will be provided on request." I wasn't given access at the Redmond courthouse.


Anyways, onto the officers statement.
One thing that stood out was when he states "...immediately following the laser number is the violator's speed and distance the speed was measured at." Yet, looking at the NOI I only see the laser number and speed, no distance.
Second, the officer states that he has "been trained in estimating speeds for over 23 years", yet does not mention how many years he has been trained in operating the laser.

Also, the officer fails to note the location of the incident on his statement, although he does state such on the NOI - is this a moot point to argue?
The officer also does not state traffic density or weather is this also a moot point?

Lastly, does anyone find anything that stands out ?

Thanks in advance,

ixBrian

Is the officer's "affidavit" SIGNED? Also, is there a statement that the affidavit is affirmed or certified "under penalty of perjury"?

Barry

From what I recieved there is no signature on the Officers sworn statement. The officer simply typed his name / along with badge number as shown in the above picture

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Is the officer's "affidavit" SIGNED? Also, is there a statement that the affidavit is affirmed or certified "under penalty of perjury"?

Barry

---

Are you referring to this?
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9858/pic333.jpg
If so, it's blank.

If by affadavit you mean the officer's sworn statement, there is nothing stating "under pentalty of perjury", or even a signature other than the officer's typed name and badge number.
Although on the NOI it states "I certify under penalty of perjury..etc" and contains the officers signature as shown above

In that case, move to have the officer's statement suppressed since it does not comply with IRLJ 3.3 (c), which states:

Quote:

---

Quoting IRLJ 3.3 (c)

---

The court may consider the notice of infraction and any other written report made under oath submitted by the officer who issued the notice or whose written statement was the basis for the issuance of the notice in lieu of the officer's personal appearance at the hearing....

---

RCW 9A.72.085 permits the submission of an "unsworn" statement, in lieu of being made "under oath", if (and only if) it:

Quote:

---

Quoting RCW 9A.72.085

---

(1) Recites that it is certified or declared by the person to be true under penalty of perjury;

(2) Is subscribed by the person;

(3) States the date and place of its execution; and

(4) States that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the state of Washington.

The certification or declaration may be in substantially the following form:

"I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct":

______________ ___________________
(Date and Place) (Signature)

---

Clearly, this officer's statement is NOT a "sworn" nor an "unsworn" statement. It does NOT recite that it is made "under penalty of perjury", nor is it "subscribed". If the prosecutor objects or states that the officer's signature on the NOI should be sufficient, point out that IRLJ 3.3 (c) REQUIRES BOTH the NOI AND a SEPARATE statement made "under oath". The word "and" in the rule makes BOTH items MANDATORY. In this case, the statement is clearly NOT in compliance. Therefore, it should be suppressed.

Once the court grants your motion, move for dismissal due to lack of evidence.

Good luck,
Barry

One thing that stood out to me upon my first reading is it seemed like a form letter. I'm mostly a lurker here, so listen the senior member's opinion of this. Did you indeed state that you "were not speeding" AND "Going with the flow of traffic"?

Like I said, it just stood out to me as something that the officer could simply fill in a couple of numbers into and submit. Hardly a defense, I suppose.