Help with Washington Speeding Ticket Discovery

Hey everybody,

I got a speeding ticket. I've been reading up on the forums and I've recently received my discovery information. I've read through it: it was filed on time, no obvious errors. I've used my deferral. My main goal is to keep this off my driving record, can I contact the prosecutor and ask this be moved to a non moving violation? I've heard speeding ticket lawyers can do that. I whited out my info. I am having trouble coming up with defense ideas, what do you think?

http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/...expertlaw1.jpg

http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/...expertlaw2.jpg

http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/...expertlaw3.jpg

http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/...expertlaw4.jpg

Thank you all for your help and expertise in advance.

If the following motion does not get your ticket dismissed, I will eat my hat:

"Your Honor, I move to suppress the state's RADAR evidence and move for dismissal. The tuning forks the officer swears under perjury to have used to test the RADAR are listed as "00896223" and "089562". These numbers do not match the records from the Washington State Patrol. The Washington State Patrol's website lists SMD device R2153 with tuning fork serial numbers "151265" and "252193". The wrong set of tuning forks were used to calibrate the device. This means that the device was improperly calibrated by the officer's own admission. Therefore, the device cannot be established to be reliable and the state's RADAR evidence should be deemed insufficient per IRLJ 6.6(c)."

By the way, GO PRINT THAT PAGE OUT before they change it!!!!!

Close, but no cigar, Speedy. The tuning forks are NOT used to "calibrate" the RADAR. Rather, they are used to "verify" the calibration of the RADAR. IRLJ 6.6 deals with the foundational requirements of entering RADAR readings into evidence -- establishing the fact that the device was designed and constructed to properly apply the Doppler effect. It has NOTHING to do with the periodic testing of the device. So, if I may, this might be a better motion:

"Your Honor, I move to suppress the state's RADAR evidence and move for dismissal. The tuning forks the officer swears under perjury to have used to test the RADAR are listed as "00896223" and "089562". These numbers do not match the records from the Washington State Patrol. The Washington State Patrol's website lists SMD device R2153 with tuning fork serial numbers "151265" and "252193". The wrong set of tuning forks were used to test the calibration of the device. This means that the device was not properly tested by the officer's own admission. Therefore, the device cannot be established to be reliable and the state's RADAR evidence should be suppressed pursuant to Spokane v Knight, 96 Wash. 403, 165 Pac. 105 (1917)." (You don't have to use the full citation of Spokane v Knight unless the judge asks for it.)

Barry

Thank you X 1000! I didn't even think to check that. The manufacture's serial number and Washington state patrol's tag numbers are different which may have caused the discrepancy. Sense nowhere is that explicitly stated, I should be ok?

blewis, I read though the link you posted in another forum about Spokane v. Knight, that is really interesting!

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Close, but no cigar, Speedy. The tuning forks are NOT used to "calibrate" the RADAR. Rather, they are used to "verify" the calibration of the RADAR. IRLJ 6.6 deals with the foundational requirements of entering RADAR readings into evidence -- establishing the fact that the device was designed and constructed to properly apply the Doppler effect. It has NOTHING to do with the periodic testing of the device.

---

Agreed. It doesn't pay to type that late at night after playing poker for 6 hours and smoking said cigars. :-od /-- eating hat

Ah, that explains it -- I hope you saved one to smoke when this person gets a dismissal. Good catch on the forks.

Barry

What in the lords name is anyone doing awake at 3am?!

Anyway. A quick glance reveals that the SMD's Patrol Speed Window did not match that of his speedometer - Officer (Hudusn?) failed to check that specific box. Clerical failure. So, that's good news: you've got a back up.

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Ah, that explains it -- I hope you saved one to smoke when this person gets a dismissal.

---

My humidor overflows. :D

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

What in the lords name is anyone doing awake at 3am?!

---

Playing poker and smoking cigars. :)

Good catch, Brendan. Especially since the operations manual for the Stalker DSR -- describing "opposite moving mode" -- states (page 14), "Be sure the patrol speed corresponds to the vehicle speedometer." Thus, the device was NOT used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

OP, if you can't get this one dismissed, you'd better do some "soul searching", 'cause the gods would have to be truly against you.

Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting TVCM

---

The manufacture's serial number and Washington state patrol's tag numbers are different which may have caused the discrepancy. Sense nowhere is that explicitly stated, I should be ok?

---

It's irrelevant. In their affidavits, the WSP should be using....WSP serial numbers!

Other observations:

• The so-called mfr. serial numbers, 00896223 and 089562 are INCONSISTENT on their face -- 8 digits vs. 6 digits? Surely that is a significant typo.
• Use the WSP service record to show that no other forks except the official ones have EVER been associated with this radar unit.
• The only official "alias" numbers those two forks may have are on the top of the PDF: KC018473 and KC018485.
• Since the moving mode box is not checked, the fact that a date within is filled in should be ignored. In in-person testimony, all that equals is the cop saying "The speedo was last calibrated..." with NO MENTION of the moving mode check.