Just Received My Discovery

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

I posted a few months back regarding a speeding citation in which I was allegedly driving 45-47 mph in a 30. While I've definitely paid the price in my youth for speeding, this is one circumstance in which I know beyond a shadow of a doubt the officer is wrong and I was not driving nearly at the speed he alleges I was. On a steep, winding downhill road in the midst of quite a bit of weaving traffic he alleges he radared me from 780 feet away and didn't hit one of the other vehicles passing me. All of that to say, I really want to win this case because I believe I've been wrongly accused, or whatever.

Now that THAT melodrama is out of the way, here is what I received from discovery. Looks like he was pretty thorough. I may be screwed. thoughts?

http://i752.photobucket.com/albums/x...overy3copy.jpg
http://i752.photobucket.com/albums/x...overy2copy.jpg

As far as I can tell from Google Maps, neither Manning, nor Spokane "intersect" with Admiral Way. Yet the officer says he was located at that "intersection". Since that intersection does not exist, we don't know where the officer was REALLY located. Without knowing where he was actually located, how can you defend yourself? Personally, I'd print out that map and take it to court.

Barry

Officer says he tested unit before & after he got you but does not indicate the TIMES (1 year before??). Does not say that he did any test or measurement per the manufacturer's recommended procedures & never states he was trained with this particular LIDAR unit. I see an issue with his statement of him facing N and you moving SW .. this would inidcate him taking a reading at a 45 degree angle which is a no-no with LIDAR ... from an ultralite LIDAR manual (dont have a Kustom manual) so if he estimated 45 MPH & measured 45 MPH from a 45 degree angle, something is horribly wrong:
The Cosine Effect
If the target vehicle is moving directly toward or away from you, the
speed measured by the UltraLyte LR B is identical to the vehicle’s true
speed. However, the instrument is usually set up on the side of the road
for safety. This results in an angle between the instrument’s position
and the target vehicle's direction of travel. When the angle is
significant, the measured speed is less than the target's true speed. The
phenomenon is known as the cosine effect. Cosine is the trigonometric
function that relates to this phenomenon.
The difference between the measured speed and the true speed
depends upon the angle between the instrument’s ideal position— the
position where targets would be moving in direct line with the
instrument—and its actual position.
• The larger the angle, the lower the measured speed.
• The effect always works to the motorist's advantage.
• Loosely speaking, the cosine effect is not significant as
long as the angle remains small. Table 6 shows this
effect.
Table 6. Measured Speed by Angle: The Cosine Effect
True Speed
30 mph 40 mph 50 mph 60 mph 70 mph
Angle
(degrees)
Measured Speed (mph)
0 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
1 29.99 39.99 49.99 59.99 69.99
3 29.96 39.94 49.93 59.92 69.90
5 29.89 39.85 49.81 59.77 69.73
10 29.54 39.39 49.24 59.09 68.94
15 28.98 38.64 48.30 57.94 67.61
20 28.19 37.59 46.99 56.38 65.78
45 21.21 28.28 35.36 42.43 49.50
90 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

As far as I can tell from Google Maps, neither Manning, nor Spokane "intersect" with Admiral Way. Yet the officer says he was located at that "intersection". Since that intersection does not exist, we don't know where the officer was REALLY located. Without knowing where he was actually located, how can you defend yourself? Personally, I'd print out that map and take it to court.

Barry

---

Hey Barry...thanks (yet again) for the swift response.

That's a great angle I didn't think of, and according to the map I can definitely see that being an issue, but tonight I drove past the intersection in question and the officer definitely has it right. It's a weird tangle of streets but the post he's sitting next to (fairly visible here ) is the intersection of those three streets. So I suppose taking a map in WOULD work (since it doesn't seem appropriately labeled) but it seems like if the Prosecution has a printout of street view I'm outta luck.

did that strike you as my only escape?

Ah, I see. What Google calls "W. Seattle Bridge" is actually "W. Spokane St.". Too bad. I really don't see anything else -- maybe someone else will see something. Perhaps you'll luck out with the SMD certification. Have you gone to the courthouse to examine it yet?

Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Ah, I see. What Google calls "W. Seattle Bridge" is actually "W. Spokane St.". Too bad. I really don't see anything else -- maybe someone else will see something. Perhaps you'll luck out with the SMD certification. Have you gone to the courthouse to examine it yet?

Barry

---

No, I suppose that's the next step. Is the list of what I'm looking for regarding the SMD on your guide as well (i admittedly haven't checked yet)?

Well, I see an indefinite time for the tests. And there's always a possibility that you can use Barry's argument and win.

Get a copy of the SMD cert and post.

Oh, and check to see if it was filed within 5 days. It seems that a lot of SMC cases have been filed outside of the limit lately.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Well, I see an indefinite time for the tests. And there's always a possibility that you can use Barry's argument and win.

---

That's what I was curious about. "Before and after the incident" seems to imply he checked it, used it on me, and then checked it again, but really that statement could mean days before and hours after. For whatever that is worth.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Get a copy of the SMD cert and post.

---

Will do.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Oh, and check to see if it was filed within 5 days. It seems that a lot of SMC cases have been filed outside of the limit lately.

---

Is that a simple phone call to the court as well? All I can see is that his statement is signed on the day of the infraction but I don't see any filing date.

Exactly. And yes. Just call the court.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Exactly. And yes. Just call the court.

---

Working on getting the SMD certification, but I just got off the phone with a rather impossible individual at the court who told me the filing date was 8/9. My citation was given on 8/2.

And if that's the case, how can I get that in writing? What document will show the file date (since she was just repeating it for me on the phone)?

Edit: I just checked and the law is within five business days. Since 8/2 was a monday, would it be accurate to say that 8/9 (also a monday) was within 5 business days, or is the first day counted (and thus friday would be day 5)?