Should You Contest 5 Over a 30 mph Limit

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: WA

My hearing is this Friday and I hope I could get some last-minute help here. Thanks!!!

What happened: A stationary cop stopped me, showing me a 40mph reading on the lidar and saying I was speeding on this 30mph road. He then gave me a 35mph (5 over) ticket saying that it could help reduce my fine. I tried to explain but he wouldn't listen.

My story: I was just getting off the freeway and waited for the green light before I went onto 124th Ave NE, Bellevue. A little onto this road there's another traffic light and the yellow light went on while I hurried through, immediately after that I was stopped by the cop. I was perhaps a little over the speed when I tried to cross the intersection while the yellow light was on. But it was just a second or two.

My question 1: what's the definition of speeding? If one was over the limit for just 2-3 seconds, should a speeding infraction be valid? Is this a meaningful argument for me?

What I did: I chose to contest and filed a discovery request. Then I went to the court twice to observe. Linda Jacke will be my judge and she is very rigid. I heard a police officer say that "You're my favorite judge!" in the court when I observed.

My discovery material: The cop is a veteran and has 17 years of experience. The report he provided seems very bullet-proof. The only thing I can think of is that he didn't say that he had a clear and unobstructed view of me, so that he could have clocked another car but stopped me. Is it possible in reality?

Discovery 1
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6084/...9a078a6115.jpg

Discovery 2
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6204/...87f24ac687.jpg

Discovery 3
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6199/...c2c9af79cb.jpg

Officer's report
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/...7ae7373680.jpg


Any advice will be greatly apprecited!!!

Btw, during my two observations, I noticed that the prosecutors would usually offer the defendants "inattention to driving" - which is a $124 fee with no infraction record reported to DMV.

Here are the certificates of calibration that I found in the Bellevue court. They are not included in my discovery materials.

Certificate of Calibration - Edward Cole 1
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6205/...911fd1ea9e.jpg

Certificate of Calibration - Edward Cole 2
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6182/...faf3bd6da2.jpg

Certificate of Calibration - Charlie Brown
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6193/...d0a0ece1a7.jpg

I vaguely remember that someone said Edward's certificate is expired, and Charlie's certificate isn't eligible because he didn't say that he's an expert in SMD. I'll further study that. Is it a worthy route to go? Is that Mociulski case relevant to me?

Hard to believe a city like Bellevue, WA (home of Microsoft) uses cheap, antiquated KUSTOM mini guns. Not even $1,500 gun, maybe $1,700 at best. You can probably find them on Amazon. It's like being able to afford a 5-star hotel but choosing Comfort Inn.

Anyways, the calibration really doesn't ever seem to matter. Those things probably get dropped, left in the heat/cold, used in rain. If anything they should be calibrated every month, but states don't care. They'd lose money then.

Handheld LIDAR devices are prone to sweep error, he claims LIDAR distance of 660ft, which is fair use of the device and makes this a much lower possibility, but still a possibility. I would bet even this "handheld" device has a tripod-connection, even if a small one. Ask about it, it's there to help prevent sweep error. WA does seem to be rather generous in their discovery process.

In some states, you have to fight for the distance. They'l use LIDAR at over 2,000ft to write you a ticket using your speed from a different speed limit zone. Usually entering a 65 zone from 70. Eventually, the public will notice and it's starting to happen.

The Mociulski argument may work, but I'd try this first: Both the officer's sworn statement and Ed Cole's certification refer to the SMD as a Kustom "Pro-Lite". Although it's a bit blurry, it appears that the Charlie Brown certification is for a "Pro-Lite +". Kustom no longer makes the Pro-Lite. Instead they currently market the Pro-Lite +. So, even though the serial numbers are the same, it appears that the certification is NOT for the same device that the officer claims to have used (and Ed Cole previously certified).

If that doesn't work, then I'd go with Mociulski.

Good luck,
Barry

Thank you so much lostintime and Barry for your insights! I was going to give up and choose the $124 "inattention to driving" offer. But your replies gave me new hope! :)

Any comments on the two points I brought up?

1. Is driving a little over-the-limit for just a second or two really deemed speeding? I can't find a definition online, but I think any one can drive a little over the limit when they cross the intersections under yellow lights or pass another car to change lanes, etc. In my case, I stopped at the traffic light after I got off the freeway, started get going again (with gradually increasing speed) for about 600 ft and came to the 2nd traffic light, where I reached my highest speed when crossing the intersection (for literally a few seconds), and then slowed down to drive the next 600 ft before I was stopped by the cop. I really think a pull-over and warning for me is more appropriate than a speeding ticket. But do you think this is nonsense to the judge since I can't provide any evidence to my statement?

2. I remember a certain post here mentioned the cop should have "a clear and unobstructed view" of the defendant's car when he clocked it. Does this matter? Will the judge care that the officer's statement didn't mention it?

Also another post here mentioned the Charlie Brown certificate wasn't signed under penalty of perjury. Mine was almost exactly the same certificate as his. Should I use this defense too?

Quote:

---

Quoting lelema

---

Thank you so much lostintime and Barry for your insights! I was going to give up and choose the $124 "inattention to driving" offer. But your replies gave me new hope! :)

Any comments on the two points I brought up?

1. Is driving a little over-the-limit for just a second or two really deemed speeding? I can't find a definition online, but I think any one can drive a little over the limit when they cross the intersections under yellow lights or pass another car to change lanes, etc. In my case, I stopped at the traffic light after I got off the freeway, started get going again (with gradually increasing speed) for about 600 ft and came to the 2nd traffic light, where I reached my highest speed when crossing the intersection (for literally a few seconds), and then slowed down to drive the next 600 ft before I was stopped by the cop. I really think a pull-over and warning for me is more appropriate than a speeding ticket. But do you think this is nonsense to the judge since I can't provide any evidence to my statement?

---

you know that the answer is yes ... looking for sympathy? 5 over .. cop is a work of art

A nanosecond at .01mph over speed limit is probably illegal. I'm sure someone in this forum will be glad to let you know. Obviously, going downhill, having to speed up briefly to change lanes if someone is following to close can push you a few over. They also may argue your speedometer wasn't calibrated. It would be interesting if insurance companies offered free speedometer calibration once per year...that way you know it's spot on. Uncalibrated speedometers work in their favor - they won't argue it made you go slower. Speedometer calibration does not seem available to the general public except in a few major cities.

All LIDAR devices, if not used on a tripod are prone to sweep effect. All one has to do is wiggle the LIDAR device even 1/4 inch and you've just gone 10mph faster. They've clocked stationary walls doing 80 because of sweep effect. There is also something called "cosine effect" with LIDAR that is actually in favor of the driver, but it's very minor. I have an LTI manual right here, the chart shows at 30MPH, if the device was used at a 10 degree angle from your car, the measured speed would be 29.54MPH, while the true speed was 30mph. I'm not sure which speed gets counted. Most likely they round up.

At 70MPH, a 10 degree angle cosine effect will render the measured speed at 68.94MPH. Unless it's above a 20 degree angle, it's insignificant.

The manual makes no mention of the "sweep effect", although they know it exists. Theoretically, an officer could arbitrarily add on 5MPH to the measured speed because of the cosine effect, and you'd never know. If it wasn't tripod mounted, speed already could have been added nullifying any possible cosine effect - but they'd still tell you that because of the cosine effect (there always is at least slight angle unless they are straight-ahead directly in front of you) it means you were for sure speeding then, the machine tried to help you but you were still speeding...something to that effect.

At 45 degrees, with 30MPH at true speed, the measured speed would read 21.21MPH. The device is high tech enough to show the exact angle the beam was returned from. It does not.

I only bring up the cosine effect because you weren't on a highway, it's usually insignificant on highways because the officer will be on the ramp. On a city street, there may have been more of an angle, leaving the door open for him to calculate the true speed from his measured speed. He did lower the speed bracket for you, even when he "wouldn't listen". You also don't mention what you tried to explain that he wouldn't listen to. I have personally seen LIDAR used improperly so you have to consider all possibilities.

As for the judge caring the lack of clarity regarding "clear and unobstructed view", it's too arbitrary to know for sure. In certain states, the vast majority of judges generally consider LIDAR to be infallible so it's going to be difficult. Not sure about WA, just the fact they give you discovery shows there is some fairness there.

Directly from the Stalker Lidar manual:

Quote:

---

A condition known as sweep effect can occur when using LIDAR devices. This will happen when the sequence of range measurements obtained by the LIDAR are not measured from the same spot on the target.

Suppose, for example, that a long rectangular semi-trailer passes by and a tripod-mounted LIDAR is sighted along a line nearly parallel to the roadway, toward the trailer’s side. The trailer has some speed, but the range to the point where the laser beam hits the side of the trailer is constant, so the LIDAR gives a speed reading of zero. On the other hand, if the trailer is stationary but the LIDAR is smoothly rotated so that the beam sweeps along the flat surface, the LIDAR receives data that the distance to the target is changing, and a non-zero speed may be indicated. These are extreme cases, but they illustrate the point that LIDAR speed measurement is based on the assumption that a series of ranges to the same small area on a target has been obtained. If the measurements do not fit this assumption, then sweep effect has occurred.

A more meaningful example of sweep effect can occur when aiming at the front or rear of a passenger vehicle. If the aim of the LIDAR device is permitted to wander between the license plate and the top of the passenger compartment, an inconsistency of about 4 feet in the range data (the length of the hood or trunk) can occur. Depending on the sequence of events, this can cause the vehicle to appear to have traveled either 4 feet further or 4 feet less than the true distance. If this sweep effect goes undetected, it could cause the calculated vehicle speed to be as much as 8 miles per hour higher or lower than the true speed. The Stalker LIDAR target recognition processing software includes tests for this condition, and potentially erroneous readings are suppressed. In addition, the continuous tracking capability of the Stalker LIDAR permits an operator to see that an erroneous speed has briefly occurred and to ignore that speed. Other possible sweep effect conditions are due to two or more targets intercepting the laser beam during one measurement. This can occur because of intervening objects interrupting the beam, or because of poor aiming allowing the beam to sweep between two side-by-side targets. The Stalker LIDAR also provides screening for this type of effect and suppresses potentially erroneous readings.

Properly trained operators can eliminate the sweep effect by understanding reflective properties of the LIDAR beam and by obtaining a proper tracking history. Using Tracking mode, Stalker LIDAR performs continuous tracking (speed and distance updating) as long as the trigger is depressed. Using Single Shot mode, a tracking history may be obtained by taking multiple readings for a single target. Either of these methods allow the operator to track the vehicle and easily recognize any invalid readings should they occur.

---

Barry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyMjtq3IodU

Sweep effect, in effect.