Ticketed for Speeding, Officer Did Not Date the Affidavit

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

SPEEDING IN A SCHOOL ZONE

Yet, again, I got another ticket (sorry guys). I'm just wondering, based on the discovery, is there a Rule that applies because the officer did not date the affidavit?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37...psa10ac40f.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37...ps13a0dc57.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37...psb8914905.jpg

Nope. Have you learned the purpose of the school crossing sign?

Last time "the officer did not put AM or PM, nor did he enter a 0 before the 5 hour" and you lost when you went to court.

I can't imagine why people think they can beat traffic tickets based on minor clerical errors.

But then, I'm not one of the local experts on WA traffic tickets.

You're welcome to go back to court and argue that the date thing invalldates the citation.

Good luck with that.

Maybe you'd be better off paying as much attention to your driving as you do to scrutinizing the traffic citations.

Actually, Jack, that's NOT a "minor clerical error". The officer's presence is not required in WA infraction cases. IRLJ 3.3 (c) allows that:

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....

---

However, RCW 9A.72.085 states that an "unsworn" statement may be used in place of one made "under oath" as long as it:

Quote:

---

Quoting RCW 9A.72.085

---

(1) Recites that it is certified or declared by the person to be true under penalty of perjury;

(2) Is subscribed by the person;

(3) States the date and place of its execution; and

(4) States that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the state of Washington.

---

So, if the date and place are missing, the document does NOT comply with the law and, therefore, cannot be used as evidence in lieu of the officer's appearance.

HOWEVER, you're correct in this particular case. Since this is a SECTOR document, GR 30 applies -- specifically GR 30 (d)(2)(D) which states:

Quote:

---

Quoting GR 30 (d)(2)

---

(D) Law enforcement officer signatures on documents signed under penalty of perjury.

(i) A citation or notice of infraction initiated by an arresting or citing officer as defined in IRLJ 1.2(j) and in accordance with CrRLJ 2.1 or IRLJ 2.1 and 2.2 is presumed to have been signed when the arresting or citing officer uses his or her user id and password to electronically file the citation or notice of infraction.

(ii) Any document initiated by a law enforcement officer is presumed to have been signed when the officer uses his or her user ID and password to electronically submit the document to a court or prosecutor through the Statewide Electronic Collision & Traffic Online Records application, the Justice Information Network Data Exchange, or a local secured system that the presiding judge designates by local rule. Unless otherwise specified, the signature shall be presumed to have been made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and on the date and at the place set forth in the citation.

---

So, OP, the answer is "no", this won't get you off.

Barry

One more thing to check is the radar calibration certificate for errors. If what you posted is all you got in your discovery request, then you were not given a copy of the calibration certificate or instructions how to get them. Usually they just point you to a certificate on file with the court. WSP has them accessible online, too, I don't know about Pierce County. Check all details on the calibration certificate (or post a copy here). A mistake in the serial number or a date on the certificate can invalidate the radar reading, too. Though the affidavit says you admitted to going 26, so that can still be used against you even if you get the radar evidence suppressed.

Officer states, "...tuning forks are..." Then he only lists one fork. There are TWO! If he failed to use the second fork, then the calibration check is invalid because it was not performed properly.

This unit has TWO antennas. Which one was tested for calibration? Which one was used?

Also, no mention of mode or patrol vehicle movement.

I would throw an ER902 argument at this entire affidavit concerning the calibration and use.

The Falcon usually comes with one tuning fork because it is only used in the stationary mode. HR means Handheld Radar - think of it like a LIDAR gun. The Falcon HR only has one antenna as well.

I agree with Brendan. According to the user's manual, the Falcon only has ONE tuning fork.

Barry

Dang it, and I even searched for the model, too.

The only (really weak) argument I can come up with is that the officer does not establish that HE or his patrol vehicle were stationary. He only establishes the mode of operation of the RADAR.

They have that infinite buffer zone for error, while it should matter, it probably won't.