LIDAR Ticket in Pierce County

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

I received a ticket for going 45 in a 35. At issue is the officer's statement. The officer's statement is:

"I was using _L #1090, to monitor the speed of moving traffic. I visually observed the defendant traveling [x] Towards [ ] Away from my location. Based upon my experience and training, I visually estimated the defendant's speed to be in excess of the posted 35MPH Zone speed limit I placed the red dot sighting reticule on the defendant's vehicle and I'm 100 percent certain that the LIDAR reading was obtained on the defendant's vehicle. I tested the LIDAR unit both internally and externally at the beginning and end of my shift. I performed (1) the Heads-up Display alignment test; (2) the internal self diagnostic check; and (3) the fixed distance check at _100___feet. The LIDAR unit passed each of the required checks and was working properly at the time of this violation."

So a few things I had issue was:
(1) the clear and unobstructed view: Although he states that he had a clear and unobstructed view, I remember that when I was "speeding", there were three cars in the lane to my right (one of them being my friend). Is there any way I can challenge the officer's statement.

(2) the officer tested the unit at the beg and end of the shift. I'm not sure what the exact law is, but I read somewhere that he needs to check it roughly immediately and after my stop. Is this true?

(3) the best issue that I believe I have is the officer never stated his training/certification in using the Laser radar. What exactly is the best way to argue this point?

Any other issues that you find would be of great help to me.

Quote:

---

Quoting gkim1985

---

(1) the clear and unobstructed view: Although he states that he had a clear and unobstructed view, I remember that when I was "speeding", there were three cars in the lane to my right (one of them being my friend). Is there any way I can challenge the officer's statement.

---

How would that obstruct his view.

Quote:

---

(2) the officer tested the unit at the beg and end of the shift. I'm not sure what the exact law is, but I read somewhere that he needs to check it roughly immediately and after my stop. Is this true?

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

(3) the best issue that I believe I have is the officer never stated his training/certification in using the Laser radar. What exactly is the best way to argue this point?

---

Not required unless you specifically requested them. You can request them. You can ask in court, but I highly suspect unless something really bizarre has occured, he was trained on the LIDAR (it's not LASER RADAR).

Actually, I respectfully disagree. The prosecution is required to lay a foundation that the officer was indeed trained and qualified to operate said Lidar device. Officer only states that he was trained and qualified to make a visual estimate. He never testifies to being trained and qualified to operate an SMD, much less in the specific use of this device.

I think you'll have success with that argument.

As for your second argument, you can try it, but odds have it that you most likely will not get anywhere with it. However, this is true in a handful of other states.

Missouri is a prime example. See State v. Weatherwax, 635 S.W.2d 34 (Mo.App.1982); City of St. Louis v. Boecker, 370 S.W.2d 731 (Mo.App.1963).

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Actually, I respectfully disagree. The prosecution is required to lay a foundation that the officer was indeed trained and qualified to operate said Lidar device. Officer only states that he was trained and qualified to make a visual estimate. He never testifies to being trained and qualified to operate an SMD, much less in the specific use of this device.

I think you'll have success with that argument.

As for your second argument, you can try it, but odds have it that you most likely will not get anywhere with it. However, this is true in a handful of other states.

Missouri is a prime example. See State v. Weatherwax, 635 S.W.2d 34 (Mo.App.1982); City of St. Louis v. Boecker, 370 S.W.2d 731 (Mo.App.1963).

---

The question is : does WA require a proper foundation be laid for the admittance of the document or statement? Clearly, the foundation is lacking; the case cited above is just one of many detailing the need for laying a foundation but the need in laying a foundation can be eliminated with certain official proceedings (like tax assessment hearings etc.). So, is there case law in WA traffic tickets (not DUIs but like speeding) out there? I have searched google scholar to no avail (but google scholar is not the greatest - its OK but not as good as other legal resources like westlaw). If a WA case is available (the higher the court, the better :)) many posters & lurkers may appreciate it.

And how is any case in Missouri relevant to Washington State?

And your statement is loopy. Nobody has "TESTIFIED" to anything yet. The fact that there was no statement of the officer's training in the police report is meaningless. If this came up in court that the officer was not trained (or could not document it) that might be an issue. If it was requested in discovery and not provided, it might be an issue. However, at this point, the failure to note training is *NOT* going to be of any procedural importance.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

And how is any case in Missouri relevant to Washington State?

---

If you actually READ my post, I clearly state, "odds have it that you most likely will not get anywhere with it."

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

And your statement is loopy. Nobody has "TESTIFIED" to anything yet.

---

That is completely wrong. The officer's statement IS his testimony. That is why he need not show up in court per IRLJ 3.3(C). Define it: "The statement made by a witness under oath or affirmation." Is it a statement? Yes. Is it made under oath? Yes. Is it testimony? Yes.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

The fact that there was no statement of the officer's training in the police report is meaningless. If this came up in court that the officer was not trained (or could not document it) that might be an issue. If it was requested in discovery and not provided, it might be an issue. However, at this point, the failure to note training is *NOT* going to be of any procedural importance.

---

Wrong again. In fact, if you ask for a copy of the officer's training documents in discovery, you WON'T get it. So it is crucial that the officer state (in his TESTIMONY) that he is trained in qualified in THE SPECIFIC device.

If it's not going to be of procedural importance then why can't I go out there, with my radar certification (assuming I had one) and use Lidar? It is no different that a 3-year old operating the device. TRAINING is a MUST. This argument has been made time and time again in our courts, and a majority of judges will uphold that argument.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

And how is any case in Missouri relevant to Washington State?

And your statement is loopy. Nobody has "TESTIFIED" to anything yet. The fact that there was no statement of the officer's training in the police report is meaningless. If this came up in court that the officer was not trained (or could not document it) that might be an issue. If it was requested in discovery and not provided, it might be an issue. However, at this point, the failure to note training is *NOT* going to be of any procedural importance.

---

Flyingron & Brendan agree, I think, that training or lack thereof, would be an issue at trial. Its not procedural but will relate to evidence & testimony admission or admissibility. It can be properly raised as an objection to documents (to any documents relating to any statement of speed via objection/motion to strike individual lines of any written statement or the entire document); objection to testimony (same but strike testimony) ; objections to be made at trial. And I dont think it would matter if it was requested pre-trial but if requested & not responded to then this can be pointed out as further reason to sustain the objection(s). This all is in reference to laying a proper foundation for documents & testimony I think. Anyone can politely correct me if I am wrong.:)

I guess the only thing I can try is bringing up the lack of testimony saying he was trained in the specific device. I'll let you guys know how it goes. Hearing is for next Thursday.

Was it signed?

Quote:

---

Quoting gkim1985

---

I guess the only thing I can try is bringing up the lack of testimony saying he was trained in the specific device. I'll let you guys know how it goes. Hearing is for next Thursday.

---

How are you planning on doing this at trial??

it was one of those e-tickets that they've been using lately. This one was a little different. In his statement he had a section for "PACE" (followed by his generic statement sans pertinent facts) "Laser" (with the facts relevant for my case) and "Radar" (also followed by his generic statement sans pertinent facts). At the very end he had the typical "i certify under ....." with his name and badge #.

Quote:

---

Quoting davidmcbeth3

---

The question is : does WA require a proper foundation be laid for the admittance of the document or statement? Clearly, the foundation is lacking; the case cited above is just one of many detailing the need for laying a foundation but the need in laying a foundation can be eliminated with certain official proceedings (like tax assessment hearings etc.). So, is there case law in WA traffic tickets (not DUIs but like speeding) out there? I have searched google scholar to no avail (but google scholar is not the greatest - its OK but not as good as other legal resources like westlaw). If a WA case is available (the higher the court, the better :)) many posters & lurkers may appreciate it.

---

See: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx from google scholar - did I ans my own ? or is this a duplicate?
75 Wn. App. 214, BELLEVUE v. LIGHTFOOT
Aug. 1994
[Nos. 29633-7-I; 31830-6-I. Division One. August 1, 1994.]
BELLEVUE v. LIGHTFOOT
THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, Respondent, v. DAVID R. LIGHTFOOT, Petitioner.
THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, Petitioner, v. JOHN STRAUSS, ET AL, Respondents.
[1] Automobiles – Speed – Radar Detection – Reliability – Proof. Police traffic radar results are admissible in a criminal prosecution
if the particular radar device used is shown to be reliable. The reliability of a radar device requires: (1) testimony of the police officer
who used the device to measure the speed of the defendant's vehicle that the device was functioning properly when so used and (2)
testimony from a qualified expert that the device passed the requisite tests and checks to ensure its operational accuracy. Expert
testimony that the engineering design of the particular radar device is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific
community is not required to establish a foundation for admission of the results of the device.
[2] Criminal Law – Evidence – Opinion Evidence – Expert Testimony – Qualifications – Opportunity To Inquire – Necessity. A
criminal defendant must be given an opportunity to ask about the qualifications of an expert witness for the State.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX

So it looks like a foundation is required.

Ticket dismissed because the officer did not state his qualifications or training. Thanks for the help.

Its good to hear that your strategy worked and resulted in success. ;)

Now you can spend the $$$ that you would have paid for with the ticket to buy a jammer :) ...