Officer's Affidavit and Wrong Speed Limit

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

Hi Everyone,

I've been at this a few times, but this particular ticket is one that I'm having trouble cracking. If you could take a look to see any holes in the affidavit (which I'm attaching), I'd really appreciate it. There are only a couple of things I could take issue with. First, the weather was not specified, the time of the infraction was not specified, and the traffic information was not specified. Are there any IRLJ rules that mandate these details? Second, two officers signed this one affidavit. That makes me wonder which one actually did the LIDARing, which one is actually the qualified/trained operator, etc. These things are probably pretty minor, however, but this next one seems more important.

Third, the speed limit on MP 58 is actually 55mph. MP 59 is 45mph. He probably LIDARed me in between these two spots and that's why he gave me the ticket. However, I think this is important because the affidavit says that "The defendant's vehicle was traveling westbound on SR 20 MP 58 In the left lane." Additionally, he says that "At the time of the measurement of speed, my vehicle was located at SR 20 MP 58." He does not make any mention of where my vehicle was at the moment my speed was measured. If he had specified that my speed was measured when I was traveling in MP 59, then the cause to give me an infraction would be correct (theoretically). However, because he only mentions MP 58, where the posted speed limit is 55mph, then technically I was only traveling one mile over the speed limit.

One last thing that's probably minor: he measured my speed at a distance greater than what he calibrated the SMD at. Is this a problem?

I have two questions. First, will my third point help my case? Second, how would I prove it to the judge? Would I take pictures of the MP and the speed limit sign showing 55mph? This isn't necessarily easy because the signs aren't right next to each other, so it would have to be two separate pictures, which would be hard to prove they coincide with each other. Perhaps there is a map available online showing MP's and their corresponding speed limits?

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Affidavit:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b9...vit_4912_1.jpg

Well, he has no doubt...but I do.

No where does he say he tested or used the SMD per the manufacturer's instructions.

The distance (or delta distance test to be more precise) measures 2 signs at different distances...the machine then uses a fixed time (say 0.1 sec) and assumes this time for the calculation of speed (distance A, measured - distance B, measured / time (presumed))--its a chk of the program). 650 ft is well within the machines theoretical capability.

Now my questions would include: are those distances stated accurate? Well, you can actually go and measure yourself if you wish ... you have a right to conduct an investigation.

And he never notes his actual visual speed result .. tsk tsk tsk .. not good.

And while he said he was trained...he never says he passed his training.

His testing showed ... big deal .. is the test the test the manufacturer requires?? is not known from his paperwork..maybe he made up his own testing scheme

Quote:

---

Quoting TarekZ

---

First, the weather was not specified, the time of the infraction was not specified, and the traffic information was not specified.

---

The time, weather, and traffic volume info will be on the NOI that this statement incorporates. If the weather and traffic volume were omitted on the NOI, it will be viewed as a harmless error anyway. If the time of the violation is missing from the NOI, you may have something…not sure.

Quote:

---

Quoting TarekZ

---

Second, two officers signed this one affidavit. That makes me wonder which one actually did the LIDARing, which one is actually the qualified/trained operator, etc.

---

This could well be an issue. I suspect that one signature is a training officer and the other a trainee. Nonetheless, either both officers should have written a statement or the training officer should be identified as simply supervising the trainee – in other words, trainee signs the statement as true and accurate and training officer signs as having reviewed the statement (or similar wording). The way it is, you are correct. It is unclear who tested the LIDAR, who used it, etc. And, most importantly, it is unclear who’s statement it is.

Quote:

---

Quoting TarekZ

---

These things are probably pretty minor, however, but this next one seems more important.

Third, the speed limit on MP 58 is actually 55mph. MP 59 is 45mph. He probably LIDARed me in between these two spots and that's why he gave me the ticket. However, I think this is important because the affidavit says that "The defendant's vehicle was traveling westbound on SR 20 MP 58 In the left lane." Additionally, he says that "At the time of the measurement of speed, my vehicle was located at SR 20 MP 58." He does not make any mention of where my vehicle was at the moment my speed was measured. If he had specified that my speed was measured when I was traveling in MP 59, then the cause to give me an infraction would be correct (theoretically). However, because he only mentions MP 58, where the posted speed limit is 55mph, then technically I was only traveling one mile over the speed limit.

---

This is probably not going to as much use as you believe. If the MP 59, 45 MPH zone is east of where the cop was parked (at MP 58), which (unless I’m having a senior moment) it is, it’s not going to help you. The speed limit remains 45 until you PASS the 55 MPH limit sign.

Quote:

---

Quoting TarekZ

---

One last thing that's probably minor: he measured my speed at a distance greater than what he calibrated the SMD at. Is this a problem?

---

Nope, not a problem (for the cop) at all. LIDARS are tested on a “known distance” course – at targets positioned at a known distance. If the LIDAR is found to be accurate at two known distances, it is accepted as accurate at any distance within its design range.

Quote:

---

Quoting PTPD22

---

This could well be an issue. I suspect that one signature is a training officer and the other a trainee. Nonetheless, either both officers should have written a statement or the training officer should be identified as simply supervising the trainee – in other words, trainee signs the statement as true and accurate and training officer signs as having reviewed the statement (or similar wording). The way it is, you are correct. It is unclear who tested the LIDAR, who used it, etc. And, most importantly, it is unclear who’s statement it is.

---

This is THE argument I would pursue. Since there is no TYPED name of the officer(s) given, which one tested it? Which one used the LIDAR? Which one saw the display? Which one estimated the speed of the vehicle? Impossible to determine from the statement. Could have been one or both. Performing ANY of the mentioned actions.

1. "Your Honor, I move to suppress the written statement and move for dismissal. Two officers signed this statement, but neither mentions specifically what actions were performed by either individual. Neither officer's name is printed on this 'fill in the blanks style' statement."

Thank you both very much for your responses. As suggested, I will capitalize on the fact that two officers signed the affidavit along with the fact that there is no printed name on the affidavit. Does anybody else have further insight into how exactly this will help me (further ammo to use with the judge)?

I checked the NOI. There is no time of the infraction specified. Can I use this to my advantage?

I wanted to give the wrong speed limit argument one more shot with you guys. Take a look at this pdf:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/roa...1Statewide.pdf

This is the Washington State Highway Log. It contains every speed limit corresponding with every MP. Granted, it is 2011, but it was the most updated version they had (they do one every year). Please refer to pages 426 and 427 of the log. This will be pages 536 and 537 of the pdf. If you look at these pages, you will see that pretty much every section of MP 58 has a speed limit of 55 mph. Is my argument clearer/stronger now?

Thank you so much for your help.

If you can get a certified copy of that: then yes, it will help. That is, unless, the prosecutor objects due to lack of foundation. But I wouldn't worry about the prosecutor.

The way that I would do it is as follows: "Your honor, the officer has testified that the speed limit is 45 MPH at this particular point on the roadway. I have certified evidence from the Washington State DOT here today that points to the contrary: Defense Exhibit A. If I may approach, your honor."

Show the document to the prosecutor and show him the page, then take it to the judge and show him the page. Walk back and say:

"Your honor, this document is evidence that the speed limit is 55 MPH at mile post 58 and remains 55 until after mile post 59. I move to dismiss on the fact that the officers testimony is incorrect and the wrong speed was cited."

The prosecutor may object to dismissal and try to amend the notice. I would come back and say, "Your honor, even if the notice was amended, by the expert testimony before this court, the speed reading was within the percentage of error for the speed measuring device and the ticket should be dismissed on that ground alone."

If you're still in no luck, I would then use speedy's stuff.

If still no luck, argue indefinite time as to when the SMD was tested. How long before and after? Hours? Days? Months? Years?

If still no luck, argue that the officer has not testified to the accuracy of the course he used for the differential distance test. If someone else was the one that measured the course, then they must testify. He cannot assume that the course is 125 and 175 feet and have it offered into evidence unless he measured it himself. Even if the course's distance is off by 2 feet, which is possible at that distance, the speed reading of the device could be drastically different.

If still no luck, you can go big or go home with an argument about how he doesn't state whether or not he shot through a window or how he was parked or exactly where he was. If it was a corner, the device could be affected by sweep effect. If he shot through a window, the laser beam could have been refracted.

The last two would of course be hail marys- but I am sick of Lidar being deemed "so perfectly accurate." In my opinion, Lidar devices have more room for failure and error than radar devices do... and I have not seen ONE officer use the device per the manufacturers instructions: mounted on a tripod. I have personally used the Prolaser III by hand and have clocked a parked car at 35 MPH. Okay... done ranting.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

...and I have not seen ONE officer use the device per the manufacturers instructions: mounted on a tripod. I have personally used the Prolaser III by hand and have clocked a parked car at 35 MPH. Okay... done ranting.

---

Really? I wish that could be submitted as case law. It would be like Jackson County Florida with RADAR being inadmissible (I think that was the county, but I could be crazy or something). But you know some judge with a hard on for the state patrol would quash it somehow.

LIDAR is seen as infallible, it cannot err.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

The last two would of course be hail marys- but I am sick of Lidar being deemed "so perfectly accurate." In my opinion, Lidar devices have more room for failure and error than radar devices do... and I have not seen ONE officer use the device per the manufacturers instructions: mounted on a tripod. I have personally used the Prolaser III by hand and have clocked a parked car at 35 MPH. Okay... done ranting.

---

The manufacturers refuse to address that in the newer manuals, along with sweep error. That way, the defendant will have to seek out third-party information. LexisNexis has some good information LIDAR in one of their publications. It's also obvious the tripod connection found on even the "handheld" LIDAR units must be a design flaw.

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

A quick google search and this comes up. I think that describes sweep error the best. That car is only 10-15 feet away, getting a reading of 9 mph. If that car was closer to 200 feet away, the speed reading would be much higher.

I wonder if the training that these officers go through is consistent with the manuals for these devices. The manuals say the best way to reduce sweep error is to use a tripod. And even that doesn't get rid of error completely.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

If you can get a certified copy of that: then yes, it will help. That is, unless, the prosecutor objects due to lack of foundation. But I wouldn't worry about the prosecutor.

---

The prosecutor will object....so certified of via a foia request ... either way should be fine.. foia is gold (just remember to submit everything .. you request & response).