Preparing for a Contested Hearing

My question involves traffic court in the State of: Washington

First of all, great work to Barry for his excellent sticky post on procedural guide. Thank you so much for providing such valuable information!

I received a traffic citation for speeding (74 in a 60 zone) on 04/21/2012 (traveling on I-5 NB just past mile post 176) which I decided to contest.
I received notice of hearing on 5/11/2012 (dated 05/08/2012) indicating my contested hearing would be on 06/01/2012. So far, everything seems to be in place for the prosecution. I will be stopping by the prosecutor's office and the court to drop off my request for discovery (thanks again to Barry for the template!). It says that I must request at least 14 days before the hearing, and I hope it is in calendar days because with the weekends and the memorial day holiday, I only count 12 working days. Is this correct?

I uploaded the documents I have so far to photobucket: http://s1075.photobucket.com/albums/w430/theaccused12/ and will update it once I receive the discovery material. It would be great if someone could help me spot any holes in the prosecutor's case. Thank you so much!

Any info yet?

Any anticipated defenses?

I served my request for discovery to the PA's office yesterday (5/15/2012) and filed a copy with the court. For the record, the court clerk told me that 14 days is in calendar days. I was offered to wait and obtain the discovery material right there and then, but I declined as I had to get back to work. I was told that the discovery material would be mailed to me by this Friday (5/18/2012). I will scan and upload it once I get it.
Thanks!

I received the discovery material from the PA's office yesterday (5/19/2012) and uploaded them to photobucket here: http://s1075.photobucket.com/albums/w430/theaccused12/

It's not clear to me from the officer report when it was filed. It seems like everything is electronic now, so perhaps it happens instantaneously?
One thing I noticed from the attachment A is that the LIDAR equipment was certified for accuracy on 3/31/2010. However, when I searched for online records for this device, it shows that it was also certified on 12/7/2011. Since the documents I was sent from the DA's office refer to Attachment A (showing certification date of 3/31/2010), is there an argument to be made about absence of proper certification procedure for 12/7/2011 certification date? As you can tell, I am clueless newbie at this, so any help would be greatly appreciated!

Question Numero Uno: What courtroom are you in? That'll will help me know what judge you are before.

Motion Numero Uno: (Used in PCDC with success a few days ago)
"Your Honor, I move to exclude the state's LIDAR evidence as insufficient per IRLJ rule 6.6(c) and move for dismissal due to lack of evidence. The Speed Measuring Device certificate for the SMD tag number L1155 states in the past tense:

On the date indicated in the incorporated document which follows, each SMD was tested using WSP procedures under the direction of an authorized SMD expert. The results were evaluated and certified by a WSP SMD expert to meet or exceed existing performance standards.

This is signed by the certifying official Mr. Anthony F. Hillock on April 1, 2011. However, Attachment A shows that the SMD was tested and certified for accuracy by Mr. Hillock on December 12, 2011. That means the SMD certificate was signed more than 6 months before the actual testing occured. Therefore the certificate is not valid and as such I move to exclude the state’s LIDAR evidence and move for dismissal due to lack of evidence."

Question Numero Dos: In his sworn statement is he referring to himself at the top, or is that a different trooper than the one who signed the statement and NOI?

If so, Motion Numero Dos: "Your honor, I move to exclude the second paragraph of the officer's testimony as it is hearsay and does not qualify as an exception under the current rules of evidence. This paragraph is all hearsay because the person who signed this affidavit had no direct knowledge of the reading and was not the person using the device. If so granted, I move to dismiss for lack of evidence."

Motion Numero Tres: "Your honor, I move to exclude the evidence obtained by the SMD and move to dismiss. The officer states that operational accuracy checks were completed, but does not state the results of these tests. There is no testimony that the SMD has not been found to be in proper working order. Without knowing with legal certainty if the device was operating properly, I move to exclude and move to dismiss."

Motion Numero Quatro: "Your honor, the officer states that the device was tested but does not state when the device was tested. I move to dismiss."

Motion Numero Cinco: "Your honor, the officer states the device was tested but does not state by whom it was tested. I move to dismiss."

Motion Numero Seis: Bellevue V. Mociulski.

Good luck.

And the SMD "expert"? Hardly an expert .... its a joke that someone would even accept him as an expert ...

Thank you for the prompt reply and guidance!

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Question Numero Uno: What courtroom are you in? That'll will help me know what judge you are before.

---

The hearing will be in KCDC in Shoreline (SH2 Ctrm 2)

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Motion Numero Uno: (Used in PCDC with success a few days ago)
"Your Honor, I move to exclude the state's LIDAR evidence as insufficient per IRLJ rule 6.6(c) and move for dismissal due to lack of evidence. The Speed Measuring Device certificate for the SMD tag number L1155 states in the past tense:

On the date indicated in the incorporated document which follows, each SMD was tested using WSP procedures under the direction of an authorized SMD expert. The results were evaluated and certified by a WSP SMD expert to meet or exceed existing performance standards.

This is signed by the certifying official Mr. Anthony F. Hillock on April 1, 2011. However, Attachment A shows that the SMD was tested and certified for accuracy by Mr. Hillock on December 12, 2011. That means the SMD certificate was signed more than 6 months before the actual testing occured. Therefore the certificate is not valid and as such I move to exclude the state’s LIDAR evidence and move for dismissal due to lack of evidence."

---

Thanks for the pointer. I read the other thread and found it very educational. One question I have is regarding the LIDAR certificate. The PA's office sent me a certificate where SMD was certified for accuracy on 3/31/2010, but it also says that they are available for inspection in the courtroom. When I looked it up online using the LIDAR device #, there is another updated certificate (actually the certificate appears the same, but Attachment A has been updated as the unit being certified for accuracy on 12/7/2011). Do I know which one the PA is going to be using in the court room because the argument would be different depending on which one, no? Or can I force them to use the latest one and use this argument? Also, would it be okay for me to print and bring the online copy or would I need obtain one from the courtroom beforehand?

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Question Numero Dos: In his sworn statement is he referring to himself at the top, or is that a different trooper than the one who signed the statement and NOI?

---

It's the same officer. Thanks for checking from that angle as well.

Motion number 3, 4, and 5 look good. Would you say that these motions are in the order in which the first one is the strongest? Perhaps the court information would help with the ordering of these motions. I will have to look into Bellevue V. Mociulski since I am not familiar with it, but thanks for the pointer.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Good luck.

---

Thank you! I will definitely need it.

I hope it's okay to answer my own question:

Quote:

---

Also, would it be okay for me to print and bring the online copy or would I need obtain one from the courtroom beforehand?

---

I read Brendan's reply to some other thread about not all courtrooms having the same copy of the certificate available. I will definitely go to the Shoreline court to obtain a copy. Thanks again!

Brendan,

I called the court and found out that the presiding judge for courtroom 2 is Judge Anderson. Do you (or anyone else who might have been in her court before) have any idea on how the motions listed above might fly in her court?
I ask since I also have the option of deferral (which I would prefer not to use).
Thanks!

They should all work with Anderson.