Radar-Based Speeding Ticket, 79 in 65 MPH

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

Ticket Details:

Violation code: 46.61.400 SPEEDING 14MPH OVER LIMIT (OVER 40
Location E/B I-90, county of kittitas, WA
Device: RADAR
Date: 09/12/2012 ~11AM

Here is the speeding affidavit per my discovery request from the prosecutor's office.

http://tinypic.com/r/15h1y8m/6
http://tinypic.com/r/15h1y8m/6

Some observations:
- I dont see distance mentioned explicitly in affidavit, but it does mention that my vehicle was the only one in the radar beam
- Also the officer has not mentioned speed recorded on the radar or speedometer. the only thing mentioned is that they match.
- Patrol car speedometer accuracy was checked on 09/12 thats the same day I received the infraction. Not sure what the time was.. Should I explore the time of speedometer certification and how?


Any suggestions on how I should proceed is deeply appreciated.

Please post the entire response after you redact your personal information. Distance is not a requirement on RADAR or LIDAR in Washington. Nobody has really challenged the distance angle to any degree of success that I know of. There is no case law to my knowledge.

Quote:

---

Quoting jscool

---

- Also the officer has not mentioned speed recorded on the radar or speedometer. the only thing mentioned is that they match.

---

That's a winning argument right there. "Your honor, I move to dismiss as there is no testimonial evidence that I was speeding. We have a foundation for that evidence, but no figure was given. Therefore, this court is left unable to determine if I was indeed speeding."

That on top of the fact that the officer was in stationary and moving mode at the same time? How did he do that one? I can drive my car in Park and in Drive at the same time as well...

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

That's a winning argument right there. "Your honor, I move to dismiss as there is no testimonial evidence that I was speeding. We have a foundation for that evidence, but no figure was given. Therefore, this court is left unable to determine if I was indeed speeding."

That on top of the fact that the officer was in stationary and moving mode at the same time? How did he do that one? I can drive my car in Park and in Drive at the same time as well...

---

"Winning argument"? How? I can almost guarantee that the speed (along with the speed limit) will be listed on the NOI. Then the question is whether the NOI was "incorporated by reference". Since we don't have the entire discovery (as Speedy already requested), we don't know.

Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

"Winning argument"? How?

---

Charging Document ≠ Testimony.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Charging Document ≠ Testimony.

---

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the NOI + the sworn statement = Testimony. IRLJ 3.3 (c) states:

Quote:

---

Quoting IRLJ 3.3 (c)

---

The court may consider the notice of infraction and any other written report made under oath submitted by the officer who issued the notice or whose written statement was the basis for the issuance of the notice in lieu of the officer's personal appearance at the hearing....

---

The way I read that, the NOI AND the sworn statement may be considered "in lieu of the officer's personal appearance". In fact, the word "AND" tells me that BOTH must be used -- that neither, alone, is sufficient. So, information only has to appear on ONE of the documents -- not both.

However, if there is nothing that links the sworn statement to the NOI (as we have seen a few times), there is no foundation for entering the statement into evidence and you're left with just an NOI. But, the court rule says you MUST have BOTH -- or the officer has to be there.

Barry

We're on the same page completely for that. But unless the officer states exactly how he obtained that reading, we are assuming facts not in evidence.

We are assuming that the officer determined that the def. was speeding by 14 mph over by using a radar device. Even if the the likelihood of this is pretty darn good, we can't weigh evidence if it is not evidence.

Either this officer needs to indicate what the readout was, or there is a gaping hole.

This is one of the main reasons that I find the "fill-in-the-blank affidavit" pretty ridiculous.

EDIT: I'm looking for a case that literally states "the charging document is not testimony" or something like that. It may have been Taylor... maybe Leach... if I don't find it, refer to above.

Just wondering .... the ticket does not state it is a notice at all ... what are the requirements of a notice in the state? If it must be noted to be a notice, then one can genuinely argue that the ticket is not a notice....

Here is the full discovery.. Sorry for the delay..

http://sdrv.ms/QDtIDY
http://sdrv.ms/QDtEUS
http://sdrv.ms/P9zhyO

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

"Winning argument"? How? I can almost guarantee that the speed (along with the speed limit) will be listed on the NOI. Then the question is whether the NOI was "incorporated by reference". Since we don't have the entire discovery (as Speedy already requested), we don't know.

Barry

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Speedy Gonzalez

---

Please post the entire response after you redact your personal information. Distance is not a requirement on RADAR or LIDAR in Washington. Nobody has really challenged the distance angle to any degree of success that I know of. There is no case law to my knowledge.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting jscool

---

Here is the full discovery.. Sorry for the delay..

http://sdrv.ms/QDtIDY
http://sdrv.ms/QDtEUS
http://sdrv.ms/P9zhyO

---

Please find the discovery above

"I received a visual display on the Radar SMD of R2327?" Wait. What? The unit readout was it's tag #? Highly improbable. But even so... something must have been wrong.