LIDAR School Zone Ticket

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: WASHINGTON STATE


First off I have a spotless driving record and have been driving commercially for 11 years with 0 tickets. I received a ticket for doing "30" in a 20MPH in my work vehicle. My first question is, can multiple officers use the same LIDAR without stating that in their notes? As the officer told me to pull over on the side street he handed the LIDAR to another officer who then tagged another car. SHouldnt it be tested by the officer who is using it? This is a "when children are present" High School, school zone. He did state in the comments that there were children present. Although I think they were all driving! Any advice would be apreciated!

Laser guns require little to no calibration and can only be used by officers while not moving. They very simply reflect a laser beam off a reflective surface on your car, often the license plate, and take a picture along with the speed. I'm not positive but I'm sure that data is almost immediately uploaded into their database, if not most likely when the gun is retired for the day.

I recently tried to contest an 83 in a 55 but I was tagged by a LIDAR gun and they had very clear evidence that I was speeding. The officer wrote the actual ID of the record on my ticket that linked to the photo proof in their database.

The officer using the gun does not matter. All that does is the car at the end of the laser beam speeding. I would enter a plea agreement and try to get it lowered. LIDAR tickets are not worth fighting.

EDIT: Considering your record, you may be able to use that in court to try and acquire some lenience.

Quote:

---

Quoting dascione

---

LIDAR tickets are not worth fighting.

---

I wouldn't go as far as to say that. There are still standards that must be established and evidence that must be presented.

It sounds to me like you already have the discovery materials. Post that up and we'll see if we can pick it apart.

Thanks for the replies! I will scan the info I received today. Thanks again!

Quote:

---

Quoting dascione

---

Laser guns require little to no calibration and can only be used by officers while not moving. They very simply reflect a laser beam off a reflective surface on your car, often the license plate, and take a picture along with the speed. I'm not positive but I'm sure that data is almost immediately uploaded into their database, if not most likely when the gun is retired for the day.

I recently tried to contest an 83 in a 55 but I was tagged by a LIDAR gun and they had very clear evidence that I was speeding. The officer wrote the actual ID of the record on my ticket that linked to the photo proof in their database.

The officer using the gun does not matter. All that does is the car at the end of the laser beam speeding. I would enter a plea agreement and try to get it lowered. LIDAR tickets are not worth fighting.

EDIT: Considering your record, you may be able to use that in court to try and acquire some lenience.

---

Odd, I have never lost a lidar case. Calibration is required at the factory & some states require periodic re-calibration (although the manufacturers do not recommend it). Thye do need to do their daily checks (before/after shift)... so if 1 officer chked the insturment & then a 2nd officer measures then both would need to testify to the speed measured and of the daily chk done, since they were both done by different indivuals (maybe?).

The officer who measured you will likely testify that he tested the unit earlier in the day & at the end of his shift (regardless if he did or not).

Best bet ... begin an investigation & require access to the range where testing is done, ask to inspect the unit, ask to interrogate the officer etc...they will not comply & this is violative of the court rules ... and grounds for dismissal.

Check the court rules and you'll see ... under discovery section (discovery is limited; investigation aspects are not).

Sorry It took so long to post these! I apreciate any ideas you guys can give me! Thanks again! My court date is the 2nd... Nothing like waiting until last minute!



http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/v...er/ticket2.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/v...er/Ticket1.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/v...er/ticket3.jpg

I feel like I've seen this affidavit before...

Move to dismiss due to the fact that the officer mentions the performance of three tests but does not explain if the unit passed each individual test.

The officer never testifies to being the one who tested the unit. Only that it was tested. If the prosecution cannot present a witness who has direct knowledge and who tested the device, move to dismiss.

And then there's the Bellevue V. Mociulski argument. Respond if you aren't familiar with that one and I or one of the others on the forum can show you how to use it.

Also: Because the officer doesn't list a specific location, (i.e. a block no.) then you can move to dismiss based on the fact that there is no proof that you were actually within the school zone at the time of the infraction. He doesn't even list his location, so maybe you were outside the school zone. Via Google Maps, it looks like the school zone begins at 25700(ish) block. Because there is no pinpoint of your EXACT position and no pinpoint of his EXACT position then the prosecution can't prove that you were within the school zone. Move to dismiss due to an indefinite location.

There. I think I just proved Dascione wrong.

Unfortunately, the ticket itself lists the location as "S/B 164th Ave SE @ Kentwood HS". Even though the officer does not specify his location, that's probably good enough to put the infraction within the school zone. On the other hand, IF the officer were at the crosswalk (and we don't really know for sure that he wasn't), 315 feet would have placed you OUTSIDE the zone.

Also, the Mociulski argument doesn't fly very well with LIDAR, since the certifications DO list the "CO" (Certifying Officer) in the righthand column. Now, if you're lucky enough, your device will have some initials other than "SRN" or "AFH". Unfortunately, again, device L1285 shows "AFH".

So, the only decent argument you've got is the "testing". In addition to what Brendan mentioned, I would also point out that the "N/A" entry for the "fixed distance/zero velocity" test would indicate that that test was not even performed. Personally, I'd go with this one first, and, if that doesn't work, use the "location" argument -- especially mentioning the 315 feet distance.

Good luck,
Barry

I was wondering about the location as well! Hopefully the testing argument will be enough though. At what point in the hearing do I move for dismissal? Its been awhile since I have been in the court room. I just want to be confident and ready. Thanks for the great advice! Iam very greatful!

Guys, does he need the manual to show that the distance test is required? N/A = not applicable (ie not needed).

I will also note that he does not state that he operated the device per any suggested methods.