Printable View
Would the experts please review these Discovery materials.
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u...cket/page1.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u...cket/page2.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u...cket/page4.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u...cket/page5.jpg
I cannot find the "BEE III DRS R2296" SMD in the following link.
http://www.co.kittitas.wa.us/courts/...r-20100806.pdf
The Radar device is shown as a type of SMD used by WSP (page 4 in above link), but I don't see it in the calibration records on the document.
The LIDAR CERTIFICATION document above (memo: dated 8/06/10) is "LIDAR" only. How does that document apply to the RADAR used in my case? No RADAR devices are listed in exhibit "A".
You're looking for this link:
http://www.co.kittitas.wa.us/courts/...r-20100806.pdf
I woud call Steen Nickleson & ask him futher backround questions ... the state claims he is an expert ... ask him if he has published anything in a scientific publication that is peer reviewed, if he has a BS, MS, or PhD, if he claims to be an expert & to provide you with any reports or other documents he relied upon when he wrote his opinion. You are allowed to conduct such a discovery per court rules & if he refuses to cooperate, I would call the DA and demand that the state makes him available. I doubt that he is an expert. I also wonder if he is giving an expert statement that you have the right to confront him in court - I would think so.
Ah-ha, separate documents for LIDAR/RADAR then.
Calibration looks good. Anything else I should be looking at?
I bet there new electronic tickets make it more difficult for a technicality to get it tossed huh?
Okay, I've reviewed them.
Since that's all you asked anyone to do, I guess my work here is done.
Well that was a waste of bandwidth...
I would ask to mitigate the insurance card citation. If you had insurance and just had the wrong card, contest it by bringing the card in and explaining that you gave the officer the wrong insurance card without noticing.
As for the speeding citation, there's really not much you can do about it. You pretty much admitted to speeding. The statement looks pretty flawless. You can try the subsection argument, or the SMD cert not notarized argument, but may not get anywhere. If you have time, you can subpoena the trooper. The State Patrol generally doesn't care enough to waste time on going to court. I only say this because I saw two WSP cases the other day dismissed because there were no subpoenaed officers. But I may be wrong.
If you do elect to go that way and to subpoena the officer, subpoena Steen Nicholson and Anthony Hillock, too. In the case where one of them does not show up, you can make a motion for dismissal saying that they both testified to the accuracy of the SMD in the certification for design and construction. Explain that your cross-examination of both witnesses is critical to your defense.
In my opinion, if you're gonna go down, don't go down without a fight.
Good luck.
Thanks for the response Brendan.
The insurance issue should be easy, I simply didn't have the up to date card in the car at the time. I've since sent the correct information to the court.
As far as admitting to speeding, the way the trooper described the event is misleading. When I said "you got me", it was not in response to him asking "do you know how fast you were going?" He hadn't said a word at that point. It was the first thing I said to the tropper when he walked up to my car. I was my was of saying - I see you pulled me over. At that point I had no idea how fast I was going, it was definately not an admission. He's actually not telling the truth when he implies that I said that in response to a question. That's simply not true.
I'm an honest, upfront kinda guy. If I did something wrong, I'll take responsibility for it. What rubbed me the wrong way in this case was the style in which the trooper gathered his data against the public (he parked in the same spot every morning for several days).
The speed reports I have from DOT show the 85th percentile going 10mph over ther limit - exactly what I was doing. It felt safe and reasonable. He was hiding around the corner at the bottom of a hill. Based on the speed reports and geography, this is what we in Naval aviation reffer to as a "target-rich environment". The state KNOWS they'll make $ there, it has less to do with public safety than it does with generating revenue.
I have a clean record. I'll respectfully request that the court find this case deferred via contested hearing by MAIL. (if that's a good idea top do by mail?)
I appreciate your feedback.
Woah, hold on. You have a traffic survey from the DOT for this section of SR 531? Please scan and post. It may help your case IMMENSELY!
And yes, arguing that the "you got me" phrase is out of context. As long as you can explain that to the judge, then you can get that stricken.
The card... you'll do fine. The most they'll impose is a small "administrative" fee.